Preamble

The House met at a Quarter before Three of the Clock, Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair.

MEMBERS SWORN.

The following Members took the Oath and signed the Roll:—

Sir Robert Hamilton, County of Orkney and Zetland.

Herbert Dixon, esquire, Borough of Belfast (East Belfast Division).

Murrough John Wilson, esquire, County of York, North Riding (Richmond Division).

Major John Elsdale Molson, M.D., County of Parts of Lindsey (Gainsborough Division).

Sir Keith Alexander Fraser, baronet, County of Leicester (Harborough Division).

PRIVATE BUSINESS.

PARLIAMENTARY NOTICES.

STANDING ORDER 11.—(Application to Owners, etc., on or before 15th December.)

On or before the Fifteenth day of December immediately preceding the Application for a Bill for power to take any Lands, or Houses compulsorily or for compulsory user of the same, or for an extension of the time granted by any former Act for that purpose, or to impose an improvement charge on any Lands or Houses, or to render any Lands or Houses liable to the imposition of an improvement charge, application in writing shall be made to the Owners or reputed Owners, Lessees or reputed Lessees, and Occupiers of all such Lands and Houses, inquiring whether they assent, dissent, or are neuter in respect of such application; and in cases of Bills included in the second class, such application shall be, as nearly as may be, in the form set forth in the Appendix marked (A).

The CHAIRMAN of WAYS and MEANS (Mr. James Hope): I beg to move to leave out the words "application in writing shall be made," and to insert instead thereof the words "notice in
writing of the application shall be given."
This is the first of a series of Amendments the object of which is to make certain alterations in the procedure relating to Private Bills. I may say that I do not propose to-day to move the last of them, which relates to the fees to be paid by the applicants for a Provisional Order, but the others really hang together, and cover quite a small point. When the notices previous to a Bill being deposited are served on the owners of property who are affected by the Bill, it is necessary to prepare a list of those who agree, those who disagree, and those who are neutral. Experience has shown that these lists are of very little value, and the Amendments which I propose would dispense with the preparation and publication of such lists. The sole object is to simplify and cheapen the procedure, to make it less expensive and less cumbrous. As almost every Private Bill involves a good deal of direct or indirect employment, it is very desirable at the present time that this kind of legislation should be made as easy as possible. I may say that in the House of Lords these alterations have already been accepted.

Mr. W. THORNE: Is there any urgency for these particular Amendments? Could they stand over till to-morrow, in order to give some of us the chance of examining them with the Standing Orders and seeing whether they are really material? I myself have not had a chance of comparing the Amendments with the Standing Orders, and I think they might be allowed to stand over till to-morrow, so that we may see whether any really fundamental alteration is taking place.

Mr. HOPE: I have no objection at all to their standing over till to-morrow, but it is desirable that they should be passed as soon as possible, so that the revised Standing Orders may be reprinted.

Mr. THORNE: Can I move that all these Amendments stand over?

Mr. SPEAKER: If the hon. Member objects, they cannot be taken.

Mr. THORNE: I object.

Oral Answers to Questions — RUSSIA.

NEGOTIATIONS.

Lieut.-Commander KEN WORTHY: 1.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether any steps are in contemplation for the renewal of the negotiations with the Government of the Russian Republic begun at Genoa this year and continued at the Hague; and what is the present state of these negotiations?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of TRADE (Sir Philip Lloyd-Greame): A full statement was made in the House on the 26th July on the Hague Conference. I cannot add anything to that statement at present.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Will the right hon. Gentleman kindly give me an answer to the last part of my question, namely, what is the present state of these negotiations? Has anything been done since July last?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: No, Sir. The state of the negotiations was, as the lion, and gallant Member will recollect, that the Russians were to make certain statements and take certain steps. As far as I know they have not done so.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Are we simply Sitting down on it now, or are we, through the usual channels, finding out whether there is any chance of renewing the negotiations?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Our position is perfectly clear. I should be only too glad to know that the Russians had taken the course indicated.

Captain O'GRADY: Has any statement or report been received at the Foreign Office here from the British Mission in Russia with regard to the negotistions?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I must have notice of that question.

SOVIET GOVERNMENT (RECOGNITION).

Mr. PONSONBY: 17.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to recognise the Russian Government?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. McNeill): The question of diplomatic recognition must necessarily depend upon the conditions which the Russian Government is prepared to accept and give effect to.

Mr. PONSONBY: Is it not a fact that the Government are quite prepared to recognise a Government that is established by a coup d'etat of Whites, but not one established under the same conditions by a coup d'etat of Reds?

Mr. McNEILL: No.

Mr. NEIL MACLEAN: Is it not the case that in the preamble to the trading treaty presented to the House, the late Government stated that the treaty was to be in existence until such time as an arrangement could be come to resuming diplomatic relations with Russia? When is that to be considered?

Mr. McNEILL: That is exactly what I have said. When the Russian Government accept the conditions that are laid down, the question of recognition will arise.

Mr. MACLEAN: Will the conditions laid down by the Government to the Russian Government be laid before the House?

Mr. McNEILL: What the conditions are is a matter on which I must ask for notice.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it, when the Russian Government is invited to the Lausanne Conference, you continue this policy of pin-pricking by refusing to recognise them when they are taking part on equal terms with us in the Conference?

Mr. McNEILL: I do not think that question arises.

Captain O'GRADY: In view of the fact that we have given the Russian Government partial recognition by reason of the setting up of the British Mission at Moscow appointed by the Foreign Office, what else stands in the way?

Mr. McNEILL: That is the same question over again. The question on the Paper is as to diplomatic recognition. That must depend on the conditions the Russian Government are prepared to accept.

Mr. CLYNES: Are the conditions referred to those laid down at the Hague Conference 01 in some other form?

Mr. McNEILL: I should have to refer to them before giving an answer. The right hon. Gentleman must give me notice.

Captain O'GRADY: In view of the fact that the British Mission now in Moscow has been appointed by the Foreign Office, is not that diplomatic recognition of the Russian Government; and, if so, what further stands in the way of setting up our Ambassador?

Mr. McNEILL: No, that does not amount to recognition.

Captain O'GRADY: What is it, then?

Mr. MOREL: 37.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in view of the obstacles which the non-recognition of the Russian Government interposes to the resumption of full commercial relations with Russia. His Majesty's Government will consider the advisability of giving full diplomatic recognition to the Russian Government?

Mr. McNEILL: So far as I am aware there is no foundation for the assumption that trade with Russia is in any way limited by the fact that the Soviet Government has not yet been accorded de jure recognition. If the hon. Member for Dundee will give me particulars of any case in point, I will go into it.

Mr. MOREL: What about the Urquhart agreement, the result of which was attributed both by Mr. Urquhart and by the Russian Government to the fact that that Government have not yet received diplomatic recognition?

Mr. McNEILL: If the hon. Gentleman will read my answer, he will see that if any case be brought to my notice, I will go into it.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE AND COMMERCE.

BILLS OF LADING.

Mr. HANNON: 2.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether, in view of the undertaking given by his predecessor on the 3rd July of this year, and the demand from both merchants and
shipowners, be will take an early opportunity of bringing in legislation with regard to bills of lading?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I will consider very carefully the question to which my hon. Friend refers, but it is not at this stage possible to make any definite statement as to the introduction of legislation.

Mr. HANNON: Is it not the case that an agreement has been come to with the Chamber of Shipping and the Federation of Traders' Organisations, and that there is no reason why there should be any delay in introducing legislation on this subject?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think the hon. Member knows what the position was at the end of last Session. I quite agree that there is a large measure of agreement, but since then there has been the International Maritime Convention, followed by a meeting of the Commission at The Hague. I am considering the effect of these, and am hoping to take up the matter very shortly.

MERCHANDISE MARKS BILL.

Mr. HANNON: 3.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether the Merchandise Marks Bill, which received a Second Reading in the last Session of the previous Parliament, will be re-introduced in the present Session?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: It is not proposed to introduce Merchandise Marks legislation before Christmas.

Mr. HANNON: Is not this Bill looked forward to by the trading community in the country with the greatest possible interest, and was not an assurance given that the Bill would be introduced in the Autumn Session?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As the hon. Member knows, this Session has assembled for a very particular purpose, and I think it is the general wish of the House that it should be got through as rapidly as possible.

Lieut.-Colonel A. MURRAY: Is it proposed to introduce this Bill next Session?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I do not think I can make a statement on that at present. The Cabinet has only just assembled, and all future legislation will have to be considered.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman bear in mind that this Bill is looked upon with alarm by other sections of the trading community?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I shall take into account all relevant considerations.

EXPORT CREDIT FACILITIES.

Major KELLEY: 7.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he proposes to lay before Parliament any plan for increasing credit facilities, or otherwise encouraging export trade?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: The proposals foreshadowed in His Majesty's Gracious Speech will be laid before the Home without delay. My hon. and gallant Friend will appreciate that it is not practicable for me to anticipate the full statement which will be made on these proposals, but I can assure him that the interests of the export trade will engage the unremitting attention of the Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — SAFEGUARDING OF INDUSTRIES ACT.

KEY INDUSTRIES.

Mr. HANNON: 4.
asked the President of the Board of Trade, whether he can present a statement showing the various key industries which have been enabled to continue and extend their activities in consequence of the operation of Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and whether he can also show a similar statement giving approximately the number of persons who have been enabled to continue in permanent employment consequent upon the application to the industry upon which they have been engaged of Part II of the same Act?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: My present information indicates that the industries affected by Part I of the Safeguarding of Industries Act have been enabled to continue, and that the range of production has been considerably extended. With regard to the second part of the question, I have recently requested the trade associations concerned to furnish my Department with periodical information as to employment in the industries covered by Orders made under Part II of the Act,
but returns are not yet available. In this connection I would remind my hon. Friend that the Orders have only been in operation some three months, and in one case for a still shorter period.

Mr. HANNON: Will the right hon. Gentleman say that in point of fact this Act has conferred certain distinct advantages on the industries of this country?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Without doubt, Sir.

HON. MEMBERS: Oh, oh!

Captain WEDGWOOD BENN: Will the right hon. Gentleman publish to the House the official information after making an ex parte, statement?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have not made an ex parte statement. I was asked what was the deduction from the information in my possession, and I have given that.

Major MACKENZIE WOOD: Will the right hon. Gentleman also inquire how many men have been thrown out of employment by this legislation?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I have no reason to suppose that a single man has been thrown out of employment.

Sir JOHN SIMON: Is it not a fact that since the Fabric Gloves Order was made the export of cotton yarn from Lancashire to Germany has been reduced by very nearly one million pounds weight?

Mr. SPEAKER: Notice should be given of a question of detail like that.

DUTY (RECEIPTS).

Major M. WOOD: 9.
asked the President of the Board of Trade how much has been received by way of duty up to the latest date available in respect of each class of articles or commodities in which Orders have been made under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act?

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): The amounts of -duty collected under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act up to the 24th instant, in respect of the various
classes of articles included in the Orders made there under, are:



£


Fabric gloves
50,695


Glove fabric
—


Domestic glassware
995


Illuminating glassware
3,599


Domestic hollow-ware
8,370


Mantles for incandescent lighting
35


Total
£63,694


The Order under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act in respect of all the above commodities except incandescent gas mantles was dated 8th August, 1922; that in respect of incandescent gas mantles was dated 9th October, 1922.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: Has the right hon. Gentleman any idea of the expense of collecting those trifling sums?

Mr. BALDWIN: I could not answer that without notice, but not so much as the amount received.

ORDERS (PART II).

Captain W. BENN: 10.
asked the President of the Board of Trade whether he has made in the Recess any Orders under Part II of the Safeguarding of Industries Act; and, if so, for what articles?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: One Order has been made during the Recess, relating to mantles for incandescent lighting and their component parts, manufactured in Germany.

Captain BENN: When will that be laid on the Table for discussion?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: I think it is on the Order Paper to-day.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: What is the general result of that Order on the value of the shares of the Welsbach Company?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: As that is not a relevant question, I must ask for notice of it.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it proposed to hold any further inquiry?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: That will depend upon the necessities of the case.

SHIPPING (FOREIGN REPAIRS).

Mr. CLARRY: 8.
asked the President of the Board of Trade the approximate loss in British shipping tonnage and the value of ship repair work which has been placed in foreign yards during the past two years which normally would have been carried out in this country: and the approximate number of workmen normally engaged in this industry who are in consequence unemployed?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: There is no obligation to report the cases in which ships are repaired or reconditioned abroad, and it is not possible, therefore, to give even approximate figures which would be more than the merest conjecture.

Mr. CLARRY: Would not the diversion of British ships back to British yards have a far-reaching effect on trade and employment, without any dislocation of the shipping industry, and do the Government contemplate taking any steps to solve this problem?

Sir P. LLOYD-GREAME: Undoubtedly the transfer of work now done abroad in reconditioning ships to British yards would be a most admirable thing, but I think the possibility of that rests rather with all sections of the trade concerned than with His Majesty's Government.

LIVING (COST).

Mr. GILBERT: 5.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what percentage above pre-War figures the present cost of living is in Germany, France, Belgium and Italy: and if the figures are at all comparable with the cost of living in this country?

The MINISTER of LABOUR (Sir Montague Barlow): I have been asked to reply. As the answer includes a number of detailed figures, I will, if I may, circulate it in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

Following is the answer:

According to the most recent official index numbers published, the percentages by which the cost of living has risen above the pre-War level are as follows:


Germany
22,000


France (Paris)
202


Belgium
276


Italy
344 and 404 (Rome and Milan respectively).

In other words, the cost of maintaining a given pre-War working-class standard of living has risen:


In Germany to
221 times


In Paris to about
3 times


In Belgium to about
3¾ times


In Rome to about
4½ times


In Milan to about
5 times

what it was in 1914.

In the case of France, the figure relates to the 2nd quarter of 1922. For the other countries it relates to the month of October.

Some reserve must be used in drawing any general conclusions from a comparison between these figures and the corresponding figure for this country, since neither the nature and scope of the primary data nor the methods used in combining them in an index-number, are absolutely identical in any two countries.

Mr. GILBERT: 6.
asked the President of the Board of Trade what the present standard of cost of living is above pre-War in Great Britain: if the last ascertained figures show an increase or decrease; and, if so, what percentage?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply. At 1st November, the cost of maintaining unchanged the pre-War standard of living of working-class families, as indicated by the statistics prepared by the Ministry of Labour, averaged approximately 80 per cent, above the level of July, 1914. The figure for the previous month was 78.

MINES (SUBSIDENCE).

Mr. EDWARDS: 11.
asked the Secretary for Mines whether it is his intention to bring in a Bill making if. compulsory to compensate house and other property owners, and also local authorities, for loss caused by subsidence through the working of coal or other minerals?

The SECRETARY for MINES (Mr. Lane-Fox): The question of introducing legislation to deal with this matter in a comprehensive way on the lines suggested by one or other of the various Committees and individuals who have studied the subject has been the subject of prolonged consideration by my Department, but it is clear that any scheme which would give
the surface occupier any additional relief to that to which he may already be entitled under the terms of his title deed or otherwise under the existing law must involve the imposition of an additional financial burden either on the taxpayer or on the ratepayer or on the mining industry, and in present circumstances I see no prospect of being able to propose legislation of this character.

Oral Answers to Questions — EDUCATION.

PROVISION OF MEALS.

Mr. TREVELYAN THOMSON: 12.
asked the President of the Board of Education the total number of children attending elementary and secondary schools who were receiving school meals at the end of October, and for the same period last year; and the total cost in each case?

The PRESIDENT of the BOARD of EDUCATION (Mr. Edward Wood): The total number of public elementary school children in receipt of school meals under the former provision of Meals Acts (now re-enacted in Sections 82 to 85 of the Education (Consolidation) Act, 1921) at the end of October, 1922, was 52,921, as compared with 100,266 at the end of October, 1921. I cannot give the total gross or net cost of meals provided up to that date, but the average cost per meal supplied during the year ending 31st March, 1922, was 3.88d. The Provision of Meals Acts did not extend to secondary schools.

Mr. SEXTON: If the present rate of unemployment continues over the winter, is it the intention of the Department to continue the Provision of Meals (School Children) Act?

Mr. WOOD: The question of the provision of meals is governed by Statute and I have no power to interfere with the operation of the Statute. It is laid down by Parliament.

Mr. AMMON: Is it not a fact that the reduction in the number of children is due to the amount paid for the feeding of the children being placed against the amount of out-relief paid to the parents?

Mr. WOOD: To a certain extent that is so, because a short time ago it became
apparent that the design of Parliament to provide meals from the point of view of the education of the children was, to some extent, being used as poor relief and it was not an educational service.

Mr. AMMON: That means that it has been shifted from the central fund on to the local rates.

—
Number of Schools.
Recognised Accommodation.


Council Schools.
Voluntary Schools.
Total.
Council Schools.
Voluntary Schools.
Total.


England
…
7,603
11,382
18,985
3,942,878
2,581,691
6,524,469


Wales
…
1,279
627
1,906
458,626
103,275
561,901


England and Wales
…
8,882
12,009
20,891
4,401,504
2,684,866
7,086,370

ELEMENTARY SCHOOL TEACHERS, GATESHEAD.

Mr. BROTHERTON: 15.
asked the President of the Board of Education if he is aware that the town council of Gateshead has decided to dismiss all teachers in its service and that all the elementary schools are now closed and have been closed since 31st October; if he can explain how this state of things has arisen; and what action he intends to take in the matter?

Mr. WOOD: I understand that the local education authority for Gateshead proposed that the scale of salaries for teachers in public elementary schools of the area should be reduced from Standard Scale III of the Burnham Committee's Report to Standard Scale II. The teachers concerned did not agree to the proposal, and the authority, therefore, decided to give them notice for the termination of their engagements, intending to re-engage them at the lower scale. The teachers have net consented to this, and the schools are at present closed. I am watching the situation closely, and hope that an opportunity may occur for a re-consideration of the position by all parties concerned.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Does the local authority get the grant under these circumstances?

Mr. BROTHERTON: Is there no means by which you can interfere with the unfortunate system which is causing 23,000 children not to be receiving education?

ELEMENTARY SCHOOLS (ACCOMMODATION).

Mr. RHYS DAVIES: 13.
asked the President of the Board of Education the number of provided and non-provided elementary schools in England and Wales in 1913 and 1922, respectively; and the accommodation in such schools?

Mr. WOOD: The figures are as follow:—

Mr. WOOD: I think I can answer the last question by answering the first. The attitude of the Board with regard to the question of the scales has always been that while they would recognise the Burnham scales for the payment of grant, they have always held that it is not their province to impose the scales on local authorities if they are not willing to adopt them, and with regard to what the hon. Member for Gateshead (Mr. Brotherton) says, I fully recognise the deplorable situation, and should be only too glad to use any influence in my power to assist towards a solution.

JUVENILES (EMPLOYMENT).

Viscountess ASTOR: 14.
asked the President of the Board of Education what was the total number of boys and girls who left the elementary schools at the end of the last summer term in the London area and in England and Wales, respectively; and whether he has any record showing the total number of these who have obtained regular employment?

Mr. WOOD: I regret that I cannot give figures for the children who left school at the end of any particular term, and the latest complete figures which I have are for those who left school in the course of the year ending 31st March, 1921. I will send my hon. Friend those figures, but I have no information as to how many of the children who left to enter employment did, in fact, obtain regular employment.

Viscountess ASTOR: Could the hon. Gentleman consider the question of what is going to be done with these boys and girls, from 14, who have not passed to secondary schools and cannot get employment?

Mr. WOOD: That question is at present engaging the attention of the Government.

MEXICO (BRITISH CREDITORS).

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 13.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether he has any information as to a proposal of the Mexican Government to honour their national obligations to British creditors in respect to Mexican Government securities issued prior to 1910?

Mr. McNEILL: His Majesty's Government are informed that an agreement was made on 16th June last between the Mexican Government and an international bankers' committee providing for the readjustment of Mexican Government obligations and the resumption of payments by the Mexican Government on an agreed basis. The first payments under this arrangement are due to be made during the year 1923. The agreement has been approved by the Mexican Congress.

Mr. SAMUEL: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether that agreement has been ratified?

Mr. McNEILL: Yes. I understand that is has been ratified.

Oral Answers to Questions — NEAR EAST.

SMYRNA (EVACUATION).

Commander BELLAIRS: 19.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs on what date the Greek troops had evacuated Smyrna; on what date the Turkish cavalry entered Smyrna; and whether the evidence of witnesses is to the effect that the fire in the Armenian quarters was started by Turkish soldiers?

Mr. McNEILL: According to the information of His Majesty's Government, the Greek troops completed the evacuation of Smyrna on the evening of 8th September. Turkish cavalry entered Smyrna at 11 a.m. on the next day. The
evidence of reliable witnesses is to the effect that the fire was started by Turkish soldiers.

EX-SULTAN OF TURKEY.

Major KELLEY: 21.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs whether it is the intention of the British Government to keep the late Sultan of Turkey at a cost of £100 per week?

Mr. SEXTON: 33.
asked the Prime Minister if the deposed ex-Sultan of Turkey is in receipt of monetary assistance from His Majesty's Government; and, if so, from what fund and what is his private income?

Mr. McNEILL: The question of the extent to which His Majesty's Government should bear unavoidable expenditure caused by the Sultan's temporary accommodation in Malta is at present under consideration. Inquiry is being made on the subject of the Sultan's private resources, on which His Majesty's Government at present have no information.

Mr. SEXTON: When it comes about that he is receiving financial assistance, will he sign the unemployment register before he receives the dole?

Mr. J. JONES: Fifteen shillings a week and 1s. for each wife.

NON-TURKISH POPULATION.

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 81.
asked the Prime Minister what measures His Majesty's Government is taking, in view of the present menance to the lives and property of the non-Turkish population of Constantinople and of the responsibilities of the Allies in the matter, to assist in the evacuation of the threatened population by the provision of transport facilities or otherwise?

Mr. McNEILL: The subject raised in this question is one of the very important points now being discussed at Lausanne, and it is not possible for me at present to make any definite statement.

Mr. BUXTON: Can the hon. Gentleman say whether assista7ice in removing refugees will be given as adequately as was given at Smyrna?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say. All I can say is that the matter is being carefully considered.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Have our naval authorities instructions to act in case of massacre, so that they may be able to take people away if cases similar to those which occurred in Smyrna should arise?

Mr. McNEILL: I cannot say definitely what instructions have been given to the naval authorities, but all possible steps with the fleet at our disposal are being taken to that end.

Mr. N. BUXTON: 32.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the decision of the Angora Government to expel all non-Turkish women and children from Anatolia, while conscribing for military service all males between 18 and 45; whether he can give the House any additional information upon this subject; and what steps His Majesty's Government proposes to take both to prevent the execution of this policy and also to remove to a place of safety the many thousands of non-Turks who are gathering in the Anatolian seaports under threat of expulsion?

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): The answer to the first part of the question is in the affirmative. In regard to the second part, His Majesty's Government do not consider the present moment, while delicate negotiations are in progress, suitable for the publication of further information on this subject. In regard to the third and fourth parts, these matters are at present receiving urgent attention at Lausanne.

Mr. BUXTON: Would the Government approach the British Dominions with a view to finding places of destination for the refugees?

NAVAL AND MILITARY EXPENDITURE.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 27.
asked the Prime Minister what additional expenditure over and above the original Estimates has been incurred to date in connection with the Near Eastern crisis and the naval and military demonstrations against the Turkish Nationalist forces; and whether it is intended to introduce a Supplementary Estimate?

Mr. BALDWIN: The additional expenditure incurred to date is estimated at £2,475,000. It will be necessary to lay Supplementary Estimates before the House next Session.

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: May I ask the Prime Minister whether all the Papers relative to the Near Eastern situation will be laid before the Supplementary Estimates, so that we may have full information?

The PRIME MINISTER: Supplementary Estimates will not be until next Session. I hope that by that time one can safely lay all the necessary Papers.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: How is it that when we want two battle cruisers to go to Rio for the exhibition at a cost of half a million sterling—

Mr. SPEAKER: That question does not arise.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 29.
asked the Prime Minister whether any Estimate has been framed by the Cabinet as to the weekly cost of military, naval, and air forces now involved in the Dardanelles, including the cost of victualling and coaling; and, if so, what is the weekly cost?

Mr. BALDWIN: The additional cost now being incurred week by week (exclusive of initial and terminal charges) is estimated at £63,500.

LEAGUE OF NATIONS.

Lieut-Colonel HODGE: 39.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider as to the advisability of immediately submitting the Turkish question to the League of Nations for settlement in accordance with Article 17 of the Covenant?

The PRIME MINISTER: Article 17 of the Covenant of the League is intended to apply to cases where it may be possible to prevent the outbreak of hostilities, and not to a war actually engaged. A conference of the belligerents concerned is now being held at Lausanne, with the object of bringing to a final conclusion the negotiations for a settlement in the Near East which were begun at the general Peace Conference. I fear that at present no useful purpose could be served by the intervention of the League of Nations.

ATTACK ON BRITISH OFFICER, INGOLDSTADT.

Captain Viscount CURZON: 20.
asked the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign
Affairs whether his attention drawn to the attack reported to have been made and organised upon a British officer member of the Allied Commission of Control at Ingoldstadt; and whether he can make any statement upon it?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for WAR (Lieut.-Colonel Guinness): I have been asked to answer this question. I can only say at present that the attention of the Government has been drawn to this incident and that the steps to be taken in the matter are under consideration.

Viscount CURZON: Will it be made quite clear by the Government that any further attacks upon British officers will not be tolerated?

Lieut.-Colonel GUINNESS: Certainly.

RABBITS BILL.

Mr. CHARLES WHITE: 22.
asked the Minister of Agriculture whether he intends to introduce this Session of Parliament the Rabbits Bill, which was printed and introduced during the last Session of the late Parliament?

The MINISTER of (Sir Robert Sanders): The answer is in the negative.

AGRICULTURAL PRODUCE (PRICES).

Mr. HURD: 24.
asked the Minister of Agriculture what steps he is taking to investigate the exact extent and character of the intermediate charges upon milk and other agricultural produce between the farm and the home, so as to ensure the fair treatment both of producer and consumer?

Mr. SHINWELL: 36.
asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been directed to the discrepancies between the prices paid to producers and those charged to consumers; whether he is aware of the existence of profiteering by middlemen; and if it is the intention of the Government to take steps to put a stop to this practice which imposes additional burdens on the people?

Mr. PENNEFATHER: 42.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Government
proposes to set up a Select Committee to inquire into the causes of the discrepancy between the prices of wheat and bread and of cattle and meat; and, if so, when that Select Committee will be appointed?

Major KELLEY: 46.
asked the Prime Minister if he will appoint a Committee with the fullest powers possible to inquire into the question of the price of foodstuffs?

Sir R. SANDERS: I am proposing to a Departmental Committee to into the methods and cost of and distributing agricultural, horticultural and dairy produce and to consider whether and, if so, by what means, the disparity between the price secured by the producer and that paid by the consumer may be diminished. The matter is one of great complexity and I think an enquiry by means of a Departmental Committee is more likely to lead to useful results than if it were made by a Select Committee of this House. The exact terms of reference and the composition of the Committee will be announced with as little delay as possible.

Mr. SHINWELL: In view of the great dissatisfaction in the country in regard to this matter, will the right hon. Gentleman set up the Departmental Committee at the earliest date?

HON. MEMBERS: He said so.

Mr. SHINWELL: When docs the right hon. Gentleman propose to set it up?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: I assume that this will have reference to England and docs not include Scotland?

Sir R. SANDERS: I should not dare to include Scotland.

GERMANY (ALLIED OCCUPATION).

Mr. CECIL WILSON: 25.
asked the Prime Minister whether any bargain or arrangement has been made whereby, in return for French support in the Near East question, we undertake to retain British troops on the Rhine and to countenance continued Allied occupation of German territory in those parts?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer is in the negative.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Major COHEN: 26.
asked the Prime Minister whether he proposes to appoint an Under-Secretary to the Ministry of Pensions?

The PRIME MINISTER: Whether an Under-Secretary is necessary is now under consideration, but I am not yet able to announce a decision.

Mr. MACPHERSON: Will the right Gentleman be able to tell the House when my Amendment is reached?

The PRIME MINISTER: I do not see that my right hon. Friend's Amendment is affected by this question, but I hope to be able to answer it on Friday.

INTER-ALLIED DEBTS.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: 28.
asked the Prime Minister whether any suggestions have been made by either the French Government or by Signor Mussolini to include in the discussion at Lausanne the question of inter-Allied debts; and whether the House can be assured that His Majesty's Government still stand by the Balfour Note on this subject?

Mr. PRINGLE: 50.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Balfour Note still represents the policy of His Majesty's Government?

The PRIME MINISTER: The answer to the first part of Question No. 28 is in the negative. So fair no formal discussion with our Allies has taken place on the subject of reparations; and when it does the Government will be free to consider the question in all its aspects.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: are we to understand from that answer that this Government does hold itself open to revise the policy laid down in the Balfour Note in regard to inter-Allied debts?

The PRIME MINISTER: It does mean that we are perfectly free to reconsider the question in all its aspects.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Has the Government yet considered the question?

The PRIME MINISTER: My answer implied that it had not yet been considered.

Mr. PRINGLE: Will the right hon. Gentleman not be intimidated by the fact that the Labour party alone support the Balfour Note?

The PRIME MINISTER: As I do not quite follow the hon. Member's question, I cannot reply.

INTERNATIONAL TREATIES.

Mr. PONSONBY: 30.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of His Majesty's Government to submit for the consideration and approval of this House all international obligations which may be incurred by this country by means of treaties, agreements, understandings, or conversations with the Government of any foreign Power?

Captain BERKELEY: 34.
asked the Prime Minister whether, in the event of a treaty or other international understanding being entered into between the Powers now conferring at Lausanne, the same will be submitted to the House of Commons for discussion and approval prior to its ratification?

Mr. MOREL: 44.
asked the Prime Minister whether an early opportunity will be given to this House to discuss the question of submitting to this House before ratification all treaties with a foreign Power or Powers involving the potential use of the armed forces of the Crown; and whether an early opportunity will be given to this House to discuss the desirability of all conventions, agreements, or understandings of any kind involving the potential use of the armed forces of the Crown being regarded as invalid unless submitted to, and approved by, this House after the fullest discussion?

The PRIME MINISTER: I realise the desirability of keeping Parliament as fully informed as possible of any obligations into which His Majesty's Government may enter by means of treaties or other similar engagements; but I am not prepared to commit myself to the grave constitutional change proposed by the hon. Members, which is particularly unsuitable to be dealt with in the way of question and answer.

Mr. PONSONBY: Will the Prime Minister allow a day in the course of the Session for the discussion of this most important matter?

The PRIME MINISTER: I certainly cam or promise a day during this Session, but if we live there will be plenty of opportunities later.

Mr. MOREL: 45.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is prepared to place upon the Table of this House the text of any existing treaties, conventions, arrangements, or understandings of any kind whatsoever with a foreign Power or Powers, committing this country in obligations involving war, or which may be open lo such interpretation, and of which this House and the country have at present no knowledge?

The PRIME MINISTER: The object desired by the hon. Member is attained by Article 18 of the Covenant of the League of Nations, to which His Majesty's Government have strictly conformed. I know of no other unpublished treaties or similar engagements, to which His Majesty's Government are a party, which involve this country in such obligations as those to which the hon. Member refers.

IRAQ (AIRCRAFT ACTION).

Captain BERKELEY: 35.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Royal Air Force, or any part of it, or any force of aircraft under the control of British authorities, is or has been engaged in en-forcing or attempting to enforce upon any part of the population of the mandated territory of Iraq the payment of taxes, either by bomb-dropping or otherwise; if so, whether the British Government has concurred in the taking of such measures; if not, whether, under the existing constitution of that territory, it would be possible for such measures to be taken without the knowledge of the British Government; whether he is in a position to make a full statement upon the matter; and, if not, whether he will order a full inquiry and lay the results upon the Table of this House?

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): There is no foundation for any suggestion that bomb dropping or other offensive action by aircraft is resorted to in Iraq or any other area for the purpose of enforcing payment of taxes or in punishment for non-payment. The normal duties of aircraft in Iraq are those of patrol and communication. Offensive action is in no
case undertaken except in reply to open and armed defiance of the administration or to attacks upon the native police forces of a kind which would otherwise necessitate expeditions by ground units. Such action, when undertaken, is under sole control of the British authorities, acting at the request of the Arab Government. In order to give every opportunity to the tribes concerned to submit to the Government, explicit warnings are habitually issued to them before any air action is taken, and these warnings, even when they do not lead to immediate submission, enable the inhabitants to withdraw from the area selected. The result is that casualties have been few.
I am assured that the use of aircraft under these conditions has achieved insults at least equal to those obtainable by ground expeditions and at a smaller toll of life and property. The reports received show that the number of cases in which the mere threat of air action is sufficient to bring about the desired result far exceeds the occasions where offensive air action is found to be actually necessary, and the High Commissioner reports that it is no exaggeration to say that air action amongst the Euphrates tribes has saved far more human lives than it has destroyed by restoring order and preventing inter-tribal fighting.
The Secretary of State is in communication with the High Commissioner on the whole subject, and as soon as full details have been received the matter will be exhaustively reviewed by His Majesty's Government.

Oral Answers to Questions — EX-SERVICE MEN.

TRAINING AND EMPLOYMENT.

Mr. FREDERICK ROBERTS: 38.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is proposed to accept the recommendations contained in the Report of the Select Committee on the Training and Employment of Disabled Ex-service Men?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply. The Government propose to proceed broadly on the lines recommended by the Select Committee, and I am inviting the Lord Mayors, Lord Provosts and Mayors to set up the King's Roll Committees in their areas forthwith. It has also been decided to appoint a King's
Roll National Council, and I am glad to be able to announce that Field-Marshal Earl Haig has consented to be Chairman.

Mr. J. JONES: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that shifting one man out of a job to put another into it does not touch the question of unemployment, as the new man is simply taking the job of his predecessor?

Sir M. BARLOW: I am not sure that that arises out of the question, but the general underlying considerations are present to my mind.

Mr. F. ROBERTS: Have any training establishments been closed down lately, and are the same arrangements still being carried on?

Sir M. BARLOW: I would like to have notice of that question, but there are abundant places vacant for training purposes in the factories which are now open.

Sir EDGAR CLARKE: 49.
asked the Prime Minister what immediate steps he proposes to take to ameliorate the position of the ex-service men during the forthcoming winter?

Sir M. BARLOW: I have been asked to reply. A full statement of the proposals of the Government for dealing with unemployment will be made at the appropriate time during the Debate on the Address; but meanwhile I can assure the hon. Member that in preparing these proposals the Government have kept constantly in mind the special claims of ex-service men.

Mr. CAIRNS: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that ex-service men are lying in wash-houses and stables and are in receipt of only 15s. a week, though they have wives and families?

Mr. SPEAKER: That does not arise out of the original question.

HONOURS (RECOMMENDATIONS).

Commander BELLAIRS: 40.
asked the Prime Minister whether he will consider the desirability of not making any recommendations for honours until the Report of the Royal Commission on the distribution of honours is issued?

The PRIME MINISTER: I hope that the recommendations of the Royal Commission on Honours will be received before any further honours list is submitted.

Sir WILLIAM DAVISON: Had the Royal Commission before them the detailed cases, particulars of which have been given recently in the Press?

The PRIME MINISTER: I cannot answer that. I have not been in communication with them.

Commander BELLAIRS: Have the Commission given any indication as to when the Report is likely to be received?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have not seen the Chairman, but I am informed that it is quite likely to be in a week-or two.

LOCAL AUTHORITIES (FINANCIAL PROVISION) ACT, 1921.

Mr. LANSBURY: 41.
asked the Prime Minister whether he intends to introduce an' Expiring Laws Continuance Bill; and, if so, whether he will include therein provision to continue the Local Authorities (Financial Provision) Act, 1921, which comes to an end in December next?

Sir MONTAGUE BARLOW: The Expiring Laws Act, 1922, became law in August, and the Government do not propose to introduce a further Measure of the kind this year. The questions arising out of the expiry at the end of next month of Section I of the Local Authorities (Financial Provisions) Act are at present under consideration.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that if this Act be not renewed the poorer boroughs in London will be bankrupt, as it is impossible to carry on, and they will have the same position again as they had a year ago?

Sir M. BARLOW: The matter is under the consideration of the Minister of Health, for whom I am taking the question at the moment, but I am sure that the consideration referred to is present to his mind.

Mr. LANSBURY: If there is nobody on that bench who does understand the subject, may I ask the Prime Minister to
put there somebody who does? I appeal to the Prime Minister. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"] You will not put me down that way. I would ask the right hon. Gentleman—[HON. MEMBERS: "Better!"] —hold your tongues—whether he will kindly get the necessary information, make himself acquainted with the subject, and give me an answer to this question to-morrow?

Sir M. BARLOW: I think that I am fairly well acquainted with the subject, but if I understood my hon. Friend's question, it relates to a certain decision. I would suggest, therefore, that if he wants a more definite answer on a point of policy involving a decision he should put a question down.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have asked you a question, and you are not able to answer it. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: We cannot debate the matter by question and answer.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL NAVY.

NEW BATTLESHIPS.

Mr. LAMBERT: 43.
asked the Prime Minister whether, seeing that our present expenditure on the fighting forces is double that of pre-War, he will, before sanctioning orders being placed for two new battleships, ascertain whether sums already allocated are being properly spent; and whether the sum necessary for the provision of two new battleships would be better employed for defence purposes in the equipment of an efficient air force?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not at present in a position to give a definite answer to this question, as the Cabinet has not yet had time to re-examine this and similar questions of expenditure.

Mr. LAMBERT: Before any definite order is given for any battleship, will the House of Commons have an opportunity of expressing its opinion on the matter, and also expressing its opinion as to whether the money would not be better spent on aircraft than on battleships?

Viscount CURZON: Is it not a fact that the House of Commons has already had an opportunity of expressing an opinion?

Mr. SPEAKER: If hon. Members endeavour to debate every question by question and answer it will be unfair to those whose questions are lower down on the Paper.

Sir SAMUEL ROBERTS: 62.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty what progress has been made with respect to giving out the orders for the construction of the two new battleships, their armament, and armour; and whether, with a view to relieving the unemployment in the centres interested, he can at once expedite such orders?

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: 63.
asked the First Lord of the Admiralty whether he can now say what steps have been taken with regard to the placing of con tracts in the matter of new capital ships; whether it is the intention of the Government to lay down one of these ships in the Royal dockyards; if so, whether he will consider the advisability of laying one down at Devonport; whether he is aware that the lengthening of the slip at Devonport would give work to a consider able number of men who are now unemployed; and, seeing that the undertaking is a necessity, can he give any assurance that the work will be started immediately?

The FIRST LORD of the ADMIRALTY (Mr. Amery): Tenders for the construction of the two new battleships and their armament and armour have been invited and some have been already considered. I hope that a decision will be reached in the whole matter very shortly, but the latest tenders are not due till the end of this month, so that a final decision cannot be given for some days yet. I can assure my hon. Friend the Member for Devonport (Sir C. Kinloch-Cooke) that the possibilities of building in the Royal yards have been fully explored, but I regret that the Board of Admiralty could not accept the very serious delay in completion of one of the ship's, if it were built at Devonport, where the slip on which it would be built could not possibly be ready for some 18 months.

Sir C. KINLOCH-COOKE: Would it not have been possible, if the slip had been enlarged 18 months ago, to have given instructions that the ships should be built in the Devonport Dock-
yard, and was this possibility not brought to the right hon. Gentleman's notice 18 months ago?

Mr. AMERY: That would have involved a cessation of the work which, was being done in the dockyard during the 18 months.

Viscountess ASTOR: Is it not true that I brought to the notice of the right hon. Gentleman—

Mr. SPEAKER: This dockyard competition is not in place now.

H.M.S. "BERWICK."

Mr. A. M. SAMUEL: 64.
asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty whether H.M.S. "Berwick" was sold by public auction or by tender to German purchasers for breaking up; if by tender, whether the ship was advertised in the shipping newspapers as being for sale; how many tenders were received; and, if the ship was not so advertised, how tenders were obtained?

The FINANCIAL SECRETARY to the ADMIRALTY (Commander Eyres-Mon-sell): The "Berwick," which was sold over two years ago, was re-sold to a German shipbreaker with Admiralty permission, to enable the British buyer, who was in financial difficulties, to continue his operations on other ships.

Mr. SAMUEL: When was H.M.S. "Berwick" originally advertised?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: That will be dealt with in my answer to the next question.

OBSOLETE VESSELS (SALE).

Mr. SAMUEL: 65.
further asked the Financial Secretary to the Admiralty what steps have been taken since 1915, beyond exhibiting notices in dockyards and on Government premises, by which the public have, in every case, been informed that certain obsolete vessels were lying up and awaiting offers for purchase at breaking up prices?

Commander EYRES-MONSELL: The widest publicity has been given to the sale of these obsolete ships. In addition to advertisement, tenders have been issued to likely purchasers—sometimes to as many as 200 firms. Furthermore, in October, 1921, a special notice was issued by the Admiralty in the Press, a
copy of which I am sending to my hon. Friend, that such vessels would be sold on a scheme of payment by instalments with a view to providing employment of ex-service men in the work of demolition.

SCOTLAND (QUESTIONS TO MINISTERS).

Major M. WOOD: 47.
asked the Prime Minister to whom questions regarding Scotland should ho addressed?

Lieut.-Colonel MURRAY: 48.
asked the Prime Minister to which Minister of His Majesty's Government in this House questions relating to Scottish affairs should be addressed?

The PRIME MINISTER: Questions should be addressed to the Under-Secretary for Scotland but they will at present be answered on his behalf by the First Commissioner of Works.

Major WOOD: Would the right hon. Gentleman say whether any steps are being taken to secure direct representation in this House for Scottish interests?

The PRIME MINISTER: We shall arrange it as soon as possible. Perhaps the hon. Member would give us his seat?

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not think it advisable that the Secretary for Scotland should be a Member of this House and not a superannuated Commissioner-General in the other House?

CABINET SECRETARIAT.

Mr. PRINGLE: 51.
asked the Prime Minister whether he can state in detail what arrangements have been made with regard to the Cabinet Secretariat; whether Sir Maurice Hankey is still secretary to the Cabinet; and, if so, what are his functions and to what Department does he belong?

The PRIME MINISTER: In reply to the first and last parts of the question, the Cabinet Secretariat has been very considerably reduced in numbers and will be transferred to the Vote of the Treasury and Subordinate Departments. The answer to the second part of the question is in the affirmative With regard to the
third part, the functions of the Secretary are to provide such secretarial service as the Cabinet requires to facilitate the transaction of its business.

MINISTRY OF PENSIONS.

Mr. LUNN: 52.
asked the Prime Minister whether it is the intention of the Government to abolish the office of Minister of Pensions, and when they propose that it shall come into operation?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am not yet in a position to give any answer to this question.

Mr. LUNN: If I repeat the question this day week may I have a definite answer?

The PRIME MINISTER: As the hon. Member knows, it is impossible to do anything without legislation. Nothing will be done in the present Session: so there is no hurry in the matter.

IRISH FREE STATE (CURRENCY).

Mr. LYNN: 53.
asked the Prime Minister whether the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland has proposed to issue £20.000,000 worth of paper money; whether the British Government has been asked to guarantee the issue: and whether it has come to any decision regarding the matter?

Mr. BALDWIN: I am not aware of any such proposal. No such request has been made to the British Government.

AGRICULTURAL WAGES (CONCILIATION COMMITTEES).

Mr. NOEL BUXTON: 54.
asked the Prime Minister whether His Majesty's Government will grant an inquiry into the effect of the abolition of agricultural wages boards and into the degree of success obtained by the county conciliation committees in maintaining an adequate standard of wages in agriculture?

Sir R. SANDERS: I have been asked to reply. I am advised that the county conciliation committees established by the Corn Production Acts (Repeal) Act have met with a considerable measure of
success, agreements having been reached in 55 areas. In September last there were 49 agreements actually in operation. The recent fall in the prices of agricultural produce has checked for the moment the settlement of winter wages in many districts, though there are 17 agreements in force at present, of which 11 have been come to during the past six weeks. The Government do not think that an inquiry would bring to light any facts not already known.

Mr. BUXTON: If an inquiry cannot be granted for the whole country, can one be granted for those counties where wages have fallen below subsistence level?

Sir R. SANDERS: I will consider that.

IMPERIAL ECONOMIC CONFERENCE.

Sir HARRY BRITTAIN: 55.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is able to indicate an approximate date for the meeting of the Empire Trade Conference?

Mr. HURD: 56.
asked the Prime Minister if he has consulted the Governments of the Empire overseas as to the holding of an imperial economic conference; and, if so, with what result?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I am not yet in a position to make any statement on the subject. I expect that the telegrams to the Dominions will be sent during the course of this week, but I am not able to give any further information to-day.

NEWSPAPERS (GOVERNMENT INFORMATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: 57.
asked the Prime Minister whether, on 21st November, his secretary summoned the representatives of certain selected newspapers to Downing Street and gave them particulars of an alleged plot, amongst certain unemployed workmen to raise His Majesty's subjects in rebellion against the Crown; whether the newspapers' representatives were told not to give the source of their information; on what evidence this charge of treason was based; whether any of the alleged plotters have been apprehended; and why an official communique1 was not issued to all
newspapers instead of the above course being taken?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have nothing to add to what I said in the Debate on Thursday last.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Does the right hon. Gentleman still maintain that all newspapers were invited to attend this conference?

The PRIME MINISTER: No, Sir. I do not think I said so. I said that I thought all London newspapers were invited. But I find that, as a matter of fact, the "Daily Herald" was not there.

HON. MEMBERS: Why?

The PRIME MINISTER: That is not surprising, because hon. Members will be the first to recognise that my secretary would hardly expect them to help the object we had in view. At the same time, if I had been consulted, I should have sent an invitation to that paper.

Mr. LANSBURY: Can the salary of the gentleman who conveyed this false information to the country be called into question on a Vote of this House?

The PRIME MINISTER: I am the person who gave instructions, and, therefore, the matter can be called into question on any opportunity of dealing with me.

Mr. LANSBURY: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman accepts responsibility for the statement that these men, the leaders of the unemployed of the country, are criminals?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not the question on the Paper.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: Did the right hon. Gentleman give instructions to his secretary that the newspapers were to be told not to give the source of information?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have inquired into that, since the hon. Member put the question once before. The information was given as information of fact, and it was left to the newspapers to publish it as information
coming from them. If we had merely intended to send it as a communiqué we should have sent it in that form, but we gave it as far as possible to papers of all political complexions.

Mr. LANSBURY: That shows that you were ashamed of it.

Mr. MACLEAN: The reason why the information supplied to other newspapers was not given to the "Daily Herald" being that the "Daily Herald" would not have assisted the Government in the object in view, will the Prime Minister be good enough to state what was the real object which the Government had in view in submitting it to a few selected papers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I have already given the information. It was to prevent a riot. I should think that the whole subject could be discussed again on the Amendment to the Address relating to unemployment.

GERMANY (TAXES ON BRITISH SUBJECTS).

Viscount CURZON: 58.
asked the Prime Minister whether he is aware that British subjects living in Potsdam have been ordered to pay taxes five times higher than those paid by Germans; whether this is in accord with the Treaty of Versailles; if not, what action His Majesty's Government intends to take in the matter; whether he is aware that the State of Thuringia and the municipality of Baden Baden also have special taxes levied upon British subjects; whether he is aware that in Berlin British subjects are specially taxed by the municipality; and whether the Government will take action to prevent these imposts or, alternatively, to levy a special tax upon German subjects in this country?

Mr. McNEILL: The whole question of the levying by the German Government authorities of discriminatory charges on British and Allied subjects in defiance of the provisions of the Treaty of Versailles is engaging the serious attention of His Majesty's Government, who are in conversation with their Allies thereon.

HOUSE OF COMMONS (WOMEN VISITORS).

Mr. DOYLE: 59.
asked the First Commissioner of Works whether, in view of the proportion of women electors now on the register and of the interest they take in political affairs, he is aware of the inadequate arrangements for the convenience of lady visitors to this House; and whether he will see that a separate room is placed at their disposal corresponding with the arrangements for men visitors?

The FIRST COMMISSIONER of WORKS (Sir John Baird): I should like to discuss this proposal with the hon. Member, though I doubt whether the accommodation available is sufficient to justify the adoption of his suggestion.

RENT RESTRICTIONS ACT.

Mr. NICHOL: 60.
asked the First Commissioner of Works, as representing the Secretary for Scotland, if he is aware that tenants of houses in Barrhead, Renfrewshire, to whom the house factors and landlords owe considerable sums of money under the recent decision of the Law Courts, are receiving from the factors notices threatening them with eviction if they do not continue to pay the increased rentals which have been declared to be illegal, and informing the tenants that the Government has promised to introduce legislation to annul the decision of the House of Lords; and what steps he is prepared to take to restrain the house factors and landlords from this intimidating course of action?

Sir J. BAIRD: My Noble Friend has not received any representations or complaints alleging action by house factors and owners of the nature suggested by the hon. Member.

Mr. NICHOL: As the answer does not give any information at all on the subject, and as there are hundreds of tenants in the Central Division of Glasgow who are affected by notices couched in a similar strain, may I ask whether the Prime Minister has any information on the subject?

Sir WALTER de FRECE: 69.
asked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, if he can now make
any statement of the policy of the Government with respect to the renewal or otherwise of the Rent Restrictions Act?

Sir M. BARLOW: The interim Report of the Departmental Committee which was set up by the late Government to consider the matters referred to by my hon. Friend is at present under consideration, and pending the result of this consideration my right hon. Friend is not in a position to make any statement.

PENSIONS.

Mr. C. WHITE: 61.
asked the Minister of Pensions whether he will assure the House that pensions to widows, children, totally disabled men, and others granted under the Royal Warrant of 1919, and subsequent Royal Warrants, shall not be reduced during the three years commencing April, 1923?

The MINISTER of PENSIONS (Major Tryon): I am glad to inform the hon. Member that the Government have decided that the present rates of flat-rate disablement, widows' and dependants' pensions shall not be revised under Article 24A of the Royal Warrant on account of the fall in the cost of living for a further period of three years from the 1st April, 1923.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: Does the right hon. Gentleman not know that widowed mothers are at present in receipt of intimation that their pensions are to be reduced from 10s. to 5s. a week? How does that square with the information which he has just given to the House?

Major TRYON: My statement is absolutely accurate. If the hon. Member refers to the Royal Warrant he will see that that is so.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: The facts are not accurate.

HOUSING.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 66.
asked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether, seeing that the official returns made by local authorities in 1919, after taking a survey of their housing needs as provided by the Housing Act of 1919, over 800,000 houses were then required to remove
existing overcrowding, and that only about 200,000 houses have yet been built, he will state what steps the Government proposes to take to remedy the continued existence of overcrowding?

Sir M. BARLOW: My right hon. Friend can only say that the whole question of future housing policy is receiving his careful consideration.

Mr. THOMSON: Can the right hon. Gentleman say whether that consideration will lead to any definite conclusion before the House rises, so that, if legislation is necessary, it can be taken before the Adjournment?

Sir M. BARLOW: I can give no answer on that point. I might suggest to my hon. Friend the possibility of putting down a question again.

Oral Answers to Questions — UNEMPLOYMENT.

NORTH EASTERN DISTRICT.

Mr. T. THOMSON: 67.
asked the Minister of Labour, as representing the Ministry of Health, whether his attention has been drawn to the fact that, according to the "Ministry of Labour Gazette" for November, the percentage of unemployed in the North-Eastern district on 23rd October was 42.5 per cent, in shipbuilding and 26.7 in engineering, as compared with an average rate of unemployment for the whole of the country of 12 per cent, in insured trades; and, in view of the extra burden thrown on the ratepayers in this district on account of relief granted to able-bodied unemployed as compared with the burden borne by the rest of the country, will he consider the desirability of equalising the burden by making special grants to such necessitous industrial areas, as is already done in the Metropolitan Poor Law area and also by the Board of Education in certain necessitous school areas?

Sir M. BARLOW: My right hon. Friend is aware of the heavy unemployment in the North-eastern district. As at present advised, however, he has no reason to suppose that the needs of the situation are not adequately met by the arrangements under which local authorities can, with his sanction, contract loans to carry them over the present difficult times.
He doubts whether any equalisation on the lines of the schemes mentioned in the question would be practicable.

Mr. THOMSON: Will the right hon. gentleman represent to the Minister of Health that direct loans for six months, or even five years, only add to the rates; and cannot the Government come to some decision on this point with regard to necessitous areas before the House rises?

Sir M. BARLOW: I will see that the matter is fully put before the Minister of Health.

NECESSITOUS AREAS.

Sir W. de FRECE: 68.
asked the Minister of Labour the 12 chief industrial centres in which there is the greatest volume of unemployment at the present time; whether all of them come under the definition of necessitous areas; and what steps he has taken to relieve the pressure on local finances?

Sir M. BARLOW: The centres in question are as follow:

Barrow-in-Furness.
Redruth and Cambourne.
Cradley Heath.
Sunderland.
Jarrow.
Hartlepool.
Ebbw Vale.
Middlesbrough.
Wednesbury.
Newcastle.
Sheffield.
Glasgow.
I do not know what my hon. Friend means in this connection by "the definition of necessitous areas.' The system of relieving local finances by means of loans to boards of guardians and small local authorities, where such authorities cannot finance themselves, is being continued. I may also refer to the general assistance given, and to be given, by the Government in relieving the unemployed and promoting trade.

Mr. J. JONES: Why is West Ham left out, considering that we had to borrow £1,000,000 since the slump in trade in order to relieve unemployment?

Sir M. BARLOW: If the hon. Member looks at the question, he will see that the point at issue is, where is the greatest volume of unemployment.

DEPUTATION TO PRIME MINISTER.

Mr. LANSBURY: (by Private Notice) asked the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that—

HON. MEMBERS: Speak up!

Mr. LANSBURY: I will speak up if you shut up.

Mr. SPEAKER: I think if the hon. Member looks towards the Chair, and addresses the Chair, he will get better attention.

Mr. LANSBURY: I was looking at the Prime Minister, but I will try to look at you, Sir. I wish to ask the Prime Minister whether his attention has been called to the fact that owing to his refusal to receive a deputation of the unemployed men now assembled in London from all parts of the country, large numbers of unemployed men have expressed their determination to join their comrades in the Metropolis; whether he is aware that the cost of maintaining the men already in London and those who may join them, falls on the ratepayers of the poorer districts, and whether he is also aware that small-pox and other diseases are prevalent' in London and that the presence of these men, whose vitality and standard of life have been severely reduced, may become a menace to tho whole country; and whether, under these circumstances, he will reconsider his decision and receive the deputation in order that the men may return to their homes at the earliest possible moment?
If the House will allow me to add to that—to save me rising again—I may say that to-day for the first time the police have commenced to arrest these men simply for walking along the street. Mr. Pickering, the clergyman who is with them, has been arrested this morning. [HON. MEMBERS: "Order."]

The PRIME MINISTER: I can add nothing to previous statements upon this subject, except to suggest that the facts mentioned in the last part of the hon. Member's question, of which he gave me notice, seem to me to be a strong argument in favour of these poor people returning home.

Mr. SHINWELL: Will the right hon. Gentleman assist to solve the problem
which has been set up as a result of these men coming to London, by relaxing his lirmness of last week and receiving the deputation?

Mr. LANSBURY: I wish to give notice that I will raise this question again on the Motion for Adjournment this evening.

NEWSPAPERS (GOVERNMENT INFORMATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to ask leave to move the Adjournment of the House for the purpose of discussing a definite matter of urgent public importance, namely, "the attempt to interfere with the freedom of the Press by issuing a statement to selected newspapers as official information, at the same time requiring the source of the information to be kept secret."

The pleasure of the House having been signified, the Motion stood over, under Standing Order No. 10, until a Quarter past Eight o'C'lock this evening.

INTERNMENT OF MEMBER.

Mr. PRINGLE: On the 23rd November there was read from the Chair a letter from the Secretary for Home Affairs of the Government of Northern Ireland, intimating that a Member of this House, one of the Members for Tyrone and Fermanagh, was interned under a Regulation made by that Government, not specified, but to which only reference was made in relation to the Defence of the Realm Act and the Restoration of Order in Ireland Act. At that time it occurred to me that a privilege might arise in connection with this intimation, and you, Mr. Speaker, kindly allowed me to raise the matter this afternoon. Since then I have had the advantage of correspondence with you. The letter which was read did not disclose that the hon. Member had been arrested upon any charge. It is well established that privilege from arrest does not extend Jo criminal charges or to breaches of the peace. So far as can be ascertained, the internment order under which the hon.
Member is detained comes under neither of these categories.

Mr. MOLES: What is the date of it?

Mr. PRINGLE: I think the date is in the letter, but that is not relevant to the point I am raising. The only legal definition of the position of such a prisoner is to be found in the judgment given in the House of Lords in the Zadig case. In that case Lord Finlay, who was then Lord Chancellor, stated that detention under Regulation 14B of the Defence of the Realm Act was not punitive, but solely preventive, thus, I think, clearly marking the distinction between such arrests and arrests on a criminal charge or for a breach of the peace. The only precedents, I submit, which have any bearing upon the present case are to be found in connection with various suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act and the Protection of Person and Property Act, 1881. In the case of many of those suspensions of the Habeas Corpus Act, Parliament expressly provided that arrests made under the powers so given were to be reviewed by the House of Commons, and in the case of the Protection of Person and Property Act of 1881, a provision was contained in that Act laying it down that intimation of arrest of Members of Parliament should be made in the same way as in the case of a criminal charge. In spite of this special provision appearing, a Motion for a Select Committee of this House to inquire was accepted by Mr. Speaker Brand, I think, on the 7th February, 1882, and on that occasion Mr. Speaker apparently held that the question whether there was a primâ facie case was a matter, not for the Chair, but for the House.
The present case, I submit, seems to fall exactly within that precedent. I do not suggest that the hon. Member is not legally detained. I am not criticising the legality of the action of the Government of Northern Ireland. The sole question is, as to whether the privilege of the House does not extend to a Member so interned. I have pointed out, or endeavoured to point out, that privilege does not cover criminal charges and breaches of the peace. In the doubtful case of contempt of court, that distinction has also been plainly drawn. Where a contempt of court is civil in its character,
it has been held that the privilege of this House protects any hon. Member; where, however, a contempt of court is criminal in its character, privilege, does not there apply. I am, therefore, in my submission to you, relying on this clear distinction, which has been observed in all the precedents, that unless there is a criminal charge, either on indictment or a breach of the peace, the House is entitled to assert its privilege, and in the circumstances of the present case I submit that I am entitled to move for a Committee of this House.

Mr. J. JONES: I cannot claim to be acquainted with all the legal technicalities arising out of the history and procedure of Parliament, and I am only asking that one of my fellow countrymen who has been honoured by being elected to this House for a district which happens to be a district that is severely interested in the question of the delimitation of the geographical areas of the Northern Parliament should not be victimised because of his political opinions. This man has been interned for some time. If he is a criminal, why is he not charged; if he has committed an offence against the laws of the country in which he lives, why does not the law proceed against him; and if he is found guilty of an offence, why not let him stand the necessary consequences? What we are asking for in this particular case is for the ancient privileges of Parliament to be asserted. The Bolshevists have turned Constitutionalists. We have been described as Bolshevists outside during the course of the Election, but we are asking that the Members of this House shall be protected in the constitutional way and be allowed to come here to exercise their duties, and that, if they are criminals, the ordinary procedure of the law shall operate against them. I, therefore, second the appeal on the broad grounds which I have just stated.

Captain CRAIG: Like the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones), I have not had time to look into the legal aspect of this question, but before you give your decision, Mr. Speaker, I would like to remind you and the House that the internment order under which this gentleman, who was elected for Fermanagh and Tyrone, has been interned is three months old, and that, therefore, the people who elected him were well aware of his present position. I would point
out also that this gentleman is a Sinn Feiner, and that the other members belonging to that same party have declared more than once, and have carried out their declarations, that if they were elected to this House they would never take their seats, so that the effect of holding that this gentleman is entitled to the advantages and privileges for which the hon. Members now ask would be that this House would be reducing itself to a laughing stock by getting a gentleman out of detention who had no intention whatever of taking his seat.

Mr. SPEAKER: I must not allow the last question to influence my mind. Whether a Member come here or not is a matter for himself and must not enter into my judgment, nor can I enter with the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones) into the question of the merits of the legislation, or the Regulation under legislation, with which we are dealing. I must keep my mind clearly and solely on the question whether a primá facie case has been shown for raising this as a matter of privilege. I must thank the hon. Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle) for his courtesy in sending me very full details of the points he intended to raise, which has enabled me to consult the authorities before pronouncing on the merits of the question.

Having taken a good deal of trouble, believing it to be my duty to be careful in every respect of the privileges of this House, I am clearly of opinion that no primá facie case of privilege is shown here. This refers to action taken by the competent authority of Northern Ireland under the powers of the criminal law for the punishment of crime or the maintenance of order. In such cases privilege has not been allowed in this House. The hon. Member quoted a case under one of my predecessors, Mr. Speaker Brand, not exactly parallel with this, but, even if it were to be taken as any guidance, a little later in Parliamentary history there were cases of that kind in which privilege was not allowed. I am of the opinion, therefore, that no case of privilege arises here.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE.

Motion made, and Question put,
That the Proceedings on the Irish Free State Constitution Bill and Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Bill and the Committee on Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) [Money] be exempted, at this day's sitting, from the provisions of the Standing Orders (Sittings of the House).—[The Prime Minister.]

The House divided: Ayes, 289; Noes, 128.

Division No. 3.]
AYES.
[4.5 p.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Brittain, Sir Harry
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Craig, Capt. C. C. (Antrim, South)


Alexander, Col, M. (Southwark)
Brown, J. w, (Middlesbrough, E.)
Cralk, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry


Apsley, Lord
Bruford, R.
Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page


Ascher-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Bruton, Sir James
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Buckingham, Sir H.
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Buckley, Lieut. Colonel A.
Curzon, Captain Viscount


Astor, viscountess
Bull, Rt. Hon. Sir William James
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Butcher, Sir John George
Davies, J. C. (Denbigh, Denbigh)


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Butt, Sir Alfred
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)


Banks, Mitchell
Button, H. S.
Davison, Sir W. H. (Kensington, S.)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Cadogan, Major Edward
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)


Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Cautley, Henry Strother
Doyle, N. Grattan


Becker, Harry
Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Edge, Captain sir William


Benn, Sir A. S. (Plymouth, Drake)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hn. J. A. (Birm. W.)
Edmondson, Major A. J.


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Ednam, Viscount


Bentinck, Lord Henry Cavendish-
Churchman, Sir Arthur
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)


Berry, Sir George
Clarry, Reginald George
Elveden, Viscount


Betterton, Henry B.
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith


Birchall, J. Dearman
Clayton, G. C.
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)


Blundell, F. N.
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Cohen, Major J. Brunel
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Falcon, Captain Michael


Brass, Captain W.
Collie, Sir John
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Fawkes, Major F. H.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Conway, Sir W. Martin
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.


Fisher, Rt. Hon. Herbert A. L.
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Flanagan, W. H.
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Forestier-Walker, L.
Lamb, J. Q.
Roberts, Rt. Hon. Sir S. (Ecclesall)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Frece, Sir Walter de
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Fremantle, Lieut.-Colonel Francis E.
Lever, Sir Arthur L.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Furness, G. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Gardiner, James
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Gates, Percy
Lorimer, H. D.
Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Lowe, Sir Francis William
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Loyd, Arthur T. (Abingdon)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Gilbert, James Daniel
Lumley, L. R.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Scrymgeour, E.


Gretton, Colonel John
Macnamara, Rt. Hon. Dr. T. J.
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Grigg, Sir Edward
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Shepperson, E. W.


Guest, Col. Henry (Bristol, North)
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Simms, Dr. John M. (Co. Down)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Sinclair, Sir A.


Gwynne, Rupert S.
Mallaby-Deeley, Sir Harry
Skelton, A. N.


Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Malone, Major P. B. (Tottenham, S.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W.(Liv'p'l, W.D'by)
Margesson, H. D. R.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Halstead, Major D.
Mercer, Colonel H.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Sparkes, H. W.


Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Spears, Brig.-Gen. E. L.


Harrison, F. C.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Stanley, Lord


Harvey, Major S. E.
Moles, Thomas
Stephenson, Lieut.-Colonel H. K.


Hawke, John Anthony
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Stuart, Lord C. Crichton-


Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Herbert, Col. Hon. A. (Yeovil)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Murchison, C, K.
Sutcliffe, T.


Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Murray, John (Leeds, West)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Hewett, Sir J. P.
Nesbitt, J. C.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Hiley, Sir Ernest
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Hinds, John
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Tubbs, S. W.


Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Hood, Sir Joseph
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh
Wallace, Captain E.


Hopkins, John W. W.
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston upon-Hull)


Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Paget, T. G.
Waring, Major Walter


Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Pease, Rt. Hon. Herbert Pike
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Hudson, Capt. A.
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Wells, S. R.


Hughes, H. Collingwood
Penny, Frederick George
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Perkins, Colonel E. K.
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Kurd, Percy A.
Peto, Basil E.
Whitla, Sir William


Hurst, Lt.-Col. Gerald Berkeley
Philipson, H. H.
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Pielou, D. P.
Windsor, Viscount


Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Winterton, Earl


Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Pownall, Lieut.-Colonel Assheton
Wise, Frederick


Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Raine, W.
Wolmer, Viscount


Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Jarrett, G. W. S.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Worthington-Evans, Rt. Hon. Sir L.


Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Remer, J. R.
Yate, Colonel Sir Charles Edward


Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Remnant, Sir James
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Kelley, Major Fred (Rotherham)
Reynolds, W. G. W.



Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


NOES.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Charleton, H. C.
Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)


Asquith, Rt. Hon. Herbert Henry
Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Harbord, H.


Attlee, C. R.
Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Hardie, C. D.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Harris, Percy A.


Barnes, A.
Collison, Levi
Hastings, Patrick


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Duncan, C.
Hemmerde, E. G.


Bonwick, A.
Edmonds, G.
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Hill, A.


Broad, F. A.
Entwistle, Major C. F.
Hillary, A. E.


Brotherton, J.
Foot, Isaac
Hirst, G. H.


Buchanan, G.
Graham, W. (Edinburgh, Central)
Hodge, Rt. Hon. John


Burnie, Major J. (Bootle)
Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Hogge, James Myles


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Irving, Dan


Cairns, John
Groves, T.
Johnston, J. (Stirling)


Chapple, W. A.
Grundy, T. W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)




Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Nichol, Robert
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Jowett, F. W, (Bradford, East)
O'Grady, Captain James
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Kenworthy, Lieut.-Commander J. M.
Paling, W.
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Kenyan, Barnet
Phillipps, Vivian
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Kirkwood, D.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Lambert, Rt. Hon. George
Potts, John S.
Tillett, Benjamin


Lansbury, George
Pringle, W. M. R.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Leach, W.
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)
Turner, Ben


Lowth, T.
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)
Wallhead, Richard C.


Lunn, William
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)
Webb, Sidney


Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Rose, Frank H.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Saklatvala, S.
Weir, L. M.


M'Entee, v. L.
Salter, Dr. A.
Wheatley, J.


McLaren, Andrew
Sexton, James
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)
Wignall, James


Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)
Shinwell, Emanuel
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Mathew, C. J.
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Maxton, James
Simon, Rt. Hon Sir John
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Middleton, G.
Simpson, J. Hope
Wintringham, Margaret


Morel, E. D.
Smith, H. B. Lees (Keighley)
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Wright, W.


Muir, John W.
Snell, Harry



Murray, Hon. A. C. (Aberdeen)
Snowden, Philip
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Mr. Spoor and Mr. Ammon.


Newbold, J. T. W.
Stephen, Campbell



Bill read a Second time.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE CONSTITUTION BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The PRIME MINISTER (Mr. Bonar Law): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time."
I wish, first of all, to express, on behalf of the Government, our great regret that the time for dealing with this Bill, the Second Reading of which I now rise to move, and with the consequential Bill, which will be moved by my hon. Friend the representative of the Colonial Office, is so short. I think that any Government elected would have realised that if a really great calamity was to be prevented, this Bill should be passed by the 6th December. The House understands what has led up to this position. Under the Treaty, and the subsequent Act in the early part of this year, the Provisional Government set up in Ireland comes automatically to an end unless this Bill passes by the 6th December. That, of course, means, so far at least as the Constitution Bill is concerned, it is practically, if not completely, impossible to alter it, for this reason, that, under the Treaty, the Constitution -had to be ratified by the Parliament in Ireland and also by this Parliament. It has already been ratified by the Irish Parliament, and, obviously, no change we made here could be valid unless it were subsequently agreed to in the Irish Parliament. In these circumstances, it would be almost impossible, even if it were desirable, to have this done. But, as a matter of fact, I think the objection was more apparent than real. The circumstances are such that, in my belief, so far as the Government are concerned, and indeed so far as the House of Commons is concerned, our liberty of action is circumscribed within the narrowest limits. The late British Parliament gave its approval to the Treaty, but what in a sense is even more important, we have just had the verdict of the country as a whole, and I am sure I am right in saying that no political party, and, so far as I know, no individual Member or candidate, took any other view than that this Treaty must be given a chance, and everyone desires that that should be done.
In these circumstances, we are limited to a single consideration. Does the Constitution comply with this Treaty, or does it not? In my judgment, that is the sole consideration that can come before the House of Commons to-day. It is obvious that in dealing with a matter of that kind, it is very difficult for an ordinary layman to come to a conclusion as to the extent to which certain words fit in with other words in another document. Rightly or wrongly, that has always been considered to be the special function of a class which usually has been well represented in this House. As an ordinary layman, I should myself have said that the single fact that the second Clause in the Irish Constitution lays it down that anything in the Constitution which is contrary to the Treaty is null and void, would of itself make the Constitution in accordance with the Treaty. But it is not on that ground; it is not on the ground of any examination I have made myself that I ask the House to allow this Constitution Bill to go through exactly as it stands. My first act on undertaking to form a Government was to find out what had been the legal opinion of the advisers of the late Government on that point. There was no doubt about it. The Law Officers declared that the Constitution was in accordance with the Treaty, but in connection with what was done by the late Government there is another fact which, I think, will have a certain amount of weight The Lord Chief Justice had by that time ceased to be a member of the Government. He occupied the second highest judicial position in this country, and, as the Lord Chancellor sometimes takes an interest in politics, he may be said to hold the highest judicial office outside politics. I think he has shown his public spirit, for he was entirely independent of the Government, and in no way obliged to do it. He undertook to go over, with the representatives of the Free State Government, the terms of the Constitution, but of course the House knows the Constitution, as originally presented to the late Government, was not in accordance with the Treaty. That was not owing in any way to bad faith, but there must always be a difference of opinion in cases of this kind. But what was done was that Lord Hewart, working with the legal representatives of the Irish Free State, went over all the points in
dispute, and they came to a settlement, and I am glad to state he has authorised me to say, in his opinion, also, the Constitution is in accordance with the Treaty. I asked our own Law Officers to examine the same question, and they gave the same opinion. In these circumstances, it seems to me that the legal opinion of such high officers, and representing, so far as politics are concerned, such different views, ought to commend itself to this House, as it does to me, as something which in itself is almost final.
It is really on this ground that I commend the Second Reading of the Bill to the House, but I want to say a little more about the wording of the Constitution. I daresay many Members of the House— and I confess I am one of them—if they had been reading the Constitution with a free mind, would say that there are expressions as to the meaning of Dominion status which they would rather not see in. But there is another reason also which influences many people, and certainly influences me. It must be remembered, of course that the drafting of the Constitution by the Irish Free State was, I think, implied in the Treaty, and, as a matter of fact, the Constitutions of Canada, Australia and of South Africa were all drafted in those Dominions, so that there is nothing in that to cause any exception. But the other consideration I have in my mind is this. Our Constitution—not only the Constitution of this country, but the relations of this country to the Dominions —is not a written Constitution. If you were to pass an Act of Parliament to define any of our actions, you would discover that the practice had completely changed from that which is found in the Statute, to such an extent that I think it would be generally agreed—the words are, I think, Professor Dicey's—that the prerogative of the Crown had largely become the privilege of the people. It is exactly the same in our relation to the Dominions. If we were to take the statutory expression as to what those relations are, it is obvious that you would find that they were entirely out of touch with the actual state of things to-day.
There is another observation I should like to make. The part played by the great Dominions in the War has really made an immense difference in their relationship with this country as a whole.
It is not only that difference, but they are themselves conscious of the change which the War has brought about. So much is this the case, that at the last Imperial Conference there was a lengthy discussion as to whether or not some attempt should not be made to define by resolution what the present relations of the Dominions to the Mother Country were. I am glad to say the Dominions' Prime Ministers unanimously came to the conclusion that any such attempt would be unwise, and might be disastrous—a view I entirely share. That leads to the consideration which, I am sure, will be in the mind of every section of the House. If there were an attempt resulting from this Irish Constitution to define by Statute what the relations of the Dominions are, it would not be merely a question between us and Southern Ireland. It would be a question of the most far-reaching importance, and I do not hesitate to say that the very fact that the Dominions have grown in stature as the result of the War makes it more necessary than ever it was before that, when the new influence which they ought to exercise on our whole, policy has no fixed machinery for carrying it out, nothing should be done to suggest that their powers are less than we know them to be, and they believe them to be. I say, therefore, without hesitation, that if this Parliament were to pass an Act which attempted to limit the powers of the Dominions, according to Statute, it would re-echo all through the Dominions, and would be one of the most dangerous things that could happen.
I am quite sure that hon. Members will agree with me that there is no need for much discussion. I do not think it is necessary to say more. I commend the Bill to the House, obviously with little fear as to the result. I recommend it, too, without any expression of exaggerated hope—though certainly no words that I could use would be stronger than I feel—I commend the Bill in the hope that what we desire will be in every way realised. I hope the House will not object to my reading one or two sentences from the speech which I made a year ago, for it shows that from the first I have fully realised how difficult the task was:
I think there is a feeling all through the Empire of rejoicing, but there is going to be a reaction from all this.… It is absurd to think that we have settled the Irish questions when both Parliaments have agreed to this. Ireland is in a state of demoralisa-
tion and chaos as great as ever has been in almost any country. That is not going to be changed by waving a wand. There are going to be terrible difficulties, but I see this prospect for us. I do not think it is our fault, but it is our misfortune that we have never had that moral support from the South of Ireland. There is at least the possibility that these people may get it; that if they do not get it to-day or to-morrow, or next year, they may get it some time, and they may restore civilised conditions to Ireland." [OFFICIAL, REPORT, 15th December, 1921: Cols. 208–209, Vol. 149.]
That is exactly the position to-day. It is a struggle for good relationship with this country and for peace in Ireland. I am quite sure that every one in this House will agree with me that we on this side can do nothing to help, but might very well do a great deal to hinder, not only by criticism, but even by expressing our sympathy. They have got to work it out for themselves. The one hope that I may express—on which I fee! strongly— is that there may be that moral support behind this new Government which we never had during 700 years, and that in that case there may be good relations between the two Governments. Believe me, Mr. Speaker, whether or not this Treaty and Bill which I am anxious for the House to adopt succeed, we hope sincerely they will. I am sure of this, not only the whole of this House, but the whole of this country, will feel—putting it on the very lowest grounds—that we must not give any excuse to the people of Ireland for thinking that we are not doing our part. We must give no excuse for that. Why should we? I am sure the feeling is deep-rooted in every one in this House that peace may come out of this. I say that no good but only harm will come of criticism; but I think I am justified in saying that I trust that the Members of the Provisional Government do think that they are getting public opinion behind them. Let me quote words which made a great impression on me, the words of Mr. Cosgrave, now-head of the Provisional Government, who, as he left me on one occasion, said: "Whatever happens to my colleagues or myself "—and the House knows what he meant by that—"whatever happens to us, the people of Ireland are determined upon peace with this country, and they know that peace can only be got by the loyal observance of the Treaty on both sides." Not only those who, like myself, have been in favour of the present course
and who, if it succeeds, will get no credit, but those who have been bitterly opposed will rejoice as deeply and as wholeheartedly if it turns out the success that we all earnestly desire.

Mr. RAMSAY MacDONALD: I desire to associate myself with what the right hon. Gentleman has said. The less said about this Bill the better. Criticism is useless. Sympathy is dangerous. All that this House can now do in relation to Irish Government is to implement its part of the Agreement and to allow this Bill to become law. Though I may be allowed to echo what the right hon. Gentleman has said about the difficulties that it may create of a much wider character than merely the difficulty of defining the exact relations between Ireland and ourselves, I hope the time will never come when there will be any attempt made to define in rigid legal formulæ the relationships between the different parts of this self-governed Empire. The one safety of the Empire is that the relationships shall remain organic rather than legal. I hope that the phrases that, of necessity I think, have had to be used in this Bill may be allowed to remain there and may not be taken out of it in another place. I welcome the Bill however for a reason which I think will not be at all considered inappropriate. Those who have read the Bill with modern democratic ideas in mind will have been much struck with the extraordinary number of new experiments that the Irish Government proposes to make. Surely it is one of the greatest aids to modern government that the Irish Government should make those experiments. We have had, for instance, this question of the functioning of government, and so on. As a student of these things, as one who sees years go on and our old conceptions of democracy and democratic forms requiring modification, surely we will welcome these experiments! I hope they will be successful. Beyond that I am not going, except to say I share the hope of the right hon. Gentleman that this is going to bring a spirit of happiness and a spirit of co-operation that all our past experiments in relation to the government of Ireland have failed to give. However dangerous it may be even to sympathise, it is not dangerous, and will not be regarded as objectionable by the Irish Government, when we say to them now, as
we say of our labours here: "May the blessing of the Almighty rest upon them, for they are dealing with problems which are almost outside the scope of human skill."

Colonel GRETTON: I do not rise for the purpose of moving the rejection of the Bill or giving any hostile criticism. The Treaty has been passed and accepted, and it is far too late for anyone in this House to challenge the terms of this Treaty. As the Prime Minister has said, all that remains to be done is to consider whether the Bill and the Constitution in the Bill are within the four corners of the Treaty. There are several questions of great importance arising out of these considerations, and I propose—if the House will bear with me for a very few minutes—to attempt to deal with a few of them, inadequately, I am afraid, because these matters are very largely legal questions in which a layman is at a great disadvantage. I find in the first Article of the Constitution that
The Irish Free State … is a coequal member of the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
I think in this phraseology there is a notable departure from the words which wore used in the Treaty, which says:
Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the community of nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada
and the other Dominions. Why is this departure made? Article 2 says:
All powers of government and all authority legislative, executive, and judicial in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland.
The phraseology of that Article is quite contrary to the Constitutions set up in His Majesty's Dominions of Canada, Australia, New Zealand and South Africa. There all the powers of the Constitution were derived from the Act of the British Parliament, conferring and establishing certain rights on and constitutions in those Dominions. I will deal a little later, if I may, with the state of things in Ireland. I am not challenging, I do not wish to challenge, the good faith of those who form the Provisional Government in Ireland, and I am not questioning their desire or intention to carry out the Treaty for which they stand. But it should always be remembered that, in respect to
democratic Governments, policies change, and that Governments that follow are not bound of necessity by their predecessors. There may be, and probably will be in Ireland, Governments holding other views—and, it may be, very different views—of questions arising out of the Treaty than at present held by the Provisional Government. Therefore, I submit that it is important that great care should be taken to see that the Constitution of which this House approves is in conformity with the Treaty entered into. Before I pass from Article 2 I would ask the House to consider how the two Articles stand. If the Republican Party in Ireland gained the ascendancy and made up its mind to establish a republic. [An HON. MEMBER: "Hear, hear!"] Yes, but I think the House will see clearly that under those two Articles there is a definite foundation for the establishment of a republic.
I will pass to the Third Article in the Constitution, which deals with the question of citizenship. Hitherto there has been no citizenship established by any Act of any Constitution in any part of His Majesty's Dominions, and all British subjects hold their status as subjects of the British Crown, whatever their nationality or race, or in whatever part of the Dominions they may reside. In this Third Article there is to be set up something quite new and different which must raise the very serious constitutional question of the relationship of the Irish Free State citizens and British subjects. Article 3 proposes to enact that
Every person, without distinction of sex domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State, at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution, who was born in Ireland or either of whose parents was born in Ireland, or who has been ordinarily resident in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State for not less than seven yeans, is a citizen of the Irish Free State, and shall within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State enjoy the privileges and be subject to the obligations of such citizenship; provided that any such person being a citizen of another State may elect not to accept the citizenship hereby conferred; and the conditions governing the future acquisition and termination of citizenship in the Irish Free State shall be determined by law.
That is something quite new. There is no mention in that Article of any provision as to the status of the British subject. That is a matter which I wish to
bring to the attention of the Law Officers, and I invite them to explain what will be the status of the citizens of the new Irish Free State as British subjects? Will they be British subjects in all parts of the world? Will they be British subjects in the United Kingdom and in our Dominions when they travel abroad, or when they go to foreign countries outside His Majesty's Dominions? Another question arises of equal importance, and it is, What will be the status of a British subject when he goes to Ireland? Under this new Free State he will not have the rights conferred by this Constitution. He will not have rights as a citizen of the Free State under Article 7, which provides:
The dwelling of each citizen is inviolable, and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law.
He will not have the advantages or the privileges of Article 10, which provides:
All citizens of the Irish Free State have the right to free elementary education.
Neither will he be able to enjoy the rights and privileges of the franchise. He will not be eligible for a judgeship or any office requiring citizenship under the Free State. This is a matter of first-class importance. I want to know clearly what will be the status of a British subject under the Irish Constitution. There are some other points of importance which, if the House will bear with me, I will endeavour very shortly to deal with. There is Article 5. This is perhaps a matter which many hon. Members think is not of much importance. Article 5 provides:
No title of honour in respect of any services rendered in or in relation to the Irish Free State may be conferred on any citizen of the Irish Free State except with the approval or upon the advice of the Executive Council of the State.
I think that is a distinct breach of the privilege and prerogative of the Crown. Why should such a provision be inserted? Then there is the provision made in Clause 7 of the Articles of Agreement which provides:
The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces:

(a) In time of peace such harbour and other facilities as are indicated in the Annex hereto, or such other facilities as may from time to time be agreed between the British Government and the Government of the Irish Free State; and
336
(b) In time of war or of strained relations with a foreign Power such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the put-poses of such defence as aforesaid."
Then I find that Article 49 of the Constitution is in the following terms:
Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State shall not be permitted to active participation in any war without the assent of the Oireachtas.
That means the Parliament of the Free State, and therefore it appears to me that these two Clauses are not in agreement. In the first place, under the Treaty it k agreed that the Irish Free State shall afford to the Government of this country harbour and other facilities which it may require in circumstances arising, not only out of a state of war, but in case of a national emergency. That means the use of the harbours and the shore and forms of communication, and it may mean such facilities as wireless telegraphy and cable communication. Article 49 lays down that none of these things can be done without the previous sanction of the Irish Parliament. In time of war or in case of a national emergency there is no time to wait for the assembling of Parliament, and consequently delay would arise in obtaining consent, and there is some doubt whether that, consent might be obtained.
No State can allow military facilities to another State and remain neutral, and by providing communications and facilities of this sort, such a State actually becomes a participator in the acts of war, and can no longer be described as neutral. I, therefore, submit that Article 49 is not in conformity with the terms of the Treaty, and should be either amended or expunged from the Constitution. If I am wrong in my contention I shall be glad to be enlightened, and I should like to hear the opinion on which the Government have acted in accepting Article 49. I do not think I need to raise the question of the appeal to the Privy Council. That is a complicated legal matter, but it is quite clear that there must be some supreme authority to deal with points of law which may arise under this Constitution. The Prime Minister says the Government rely upon the Clause which states that anything not in conformity with the Constitution shall become null and void and have no effect, but who is going to decide that point? Who is
going to decide whether by any legislation or any act of administration or failure to take action, according to the terms of the Treaty or the Constitution, there has been such a violation as will render such acts null and void?
It is said that the Privy Council has to decide these matters. I know that there are constantly a number of cases being referred to the Privy Council from the Dominions, and it is true that in the case of Canada, by the Act of 1886, a Supreme Court was set up in Canada which overrides the previous unlimited appeal to the Privy Council of this country. In practice, however, many matters are referred to the Privy Council by leave and by permission, and that is the Constitutional form. All matters of general importance dealing with large questions affecting a large number of persons in Canada and our Dominions are decided by the Privy Council, and I think the same privilege should obtain in Ireland, more especially as in Ireland there is some doubt as to what is the actual status of a British subject under the Irish Constitution. This is a point which requires to be carefully considered before this Bill is passed.
I come to observations of a rather marc general kind. I would like to ask with whom are we making this Treaty? Upon whom are we conferring this Constitution? I would also like to know whether the Constitution which Parliament is now being asked to pass is to be accepted as a final settlement. That is a very large point. I am not speaking as an advocate, and I am trying to state the case as impartially as I can, and I am basing my argument upon well-known and established facts. There are large bodies of people in Ireland who certainly do not accept this Treaty or this Constitution as a final settlement of the Irish question. The Minister for Local Government under the Provisional Government (Mr. Ernest Blythe) himself said:
We all hold and believe that the Treaty may be annulled. We all hold that, when the Irish Nation wishes, when it finds it advantageous, it may annul, on proper notice, any Treaty it has entered into. We regard this as fundamental.
The Minister for Homo Affairs in the Provisional Government (Mr. O'Higgins) said:
There has been much said about this Treaty to the effect that there was duress. Undoubtedly there was duress. The Irish
people have taken this Treaty as the best thing they could do in the circumstances of the time. Now I hold that, in the case of the Treaty, and I think in what I am going to say now I am expressing the mind of a great many people throughout the country, that, in the case of a Treaty signed under circumstances and conditions like that, that position is simply that at any moment in the future the majority will of the Irish Nation can publicly and absolutely, without dishonour, repudiate that Treaty if they consider it wise to do so.
The Minister for Local Government (Mr. Ernest Blythe) further said:
I decided to vote for the Treaty … I believe it contains the principle of growth, and because of that I believe through the Treaty position Ireland can work forward to complete nationhood.
5.0 P.M.
It has been stated again and again by supporters of the Government that this Treaty is simply regarded by a very large number of people in Ireland as a stepping stone to complete severance of the British connection. If that is so—and I think it cannot be contested—there is all the more reason why we should be exceedingly careful that we do not go in any degree in this Constitution outside the terms of the Treaty. The Government in Ireland itself—and I am not now offering any criticisms upon that Government—is by no means firmly established. It is surrounded by enemies. There is a very strong and very active Republican party in Ireland which may at any time succeed in overthrowing it. There is a strong Labour party supported by the Transport Workers' Union and other bodies, which is certainly against this Constitution being treated as a final settlement, and which believes it can be used effectively, at no very distant day, to set up an independent kingdom entirely separate from the United Kingdom. Speeches made in the debates in the Dail have been of a more extreme and advanced character. I think I am therefore justified in saying that we are asked to make this arrangement on an exceedingly insecure and uncertain foundation.
The Prime Minister has admitted that the South of Ireland is in a state of chaos which is deplorable. It is so, and that condition gets worse month by month and week by week. There has been a steady deterioration in the moral character of the people in Southern Ireland. Look at the nature of the crimes—the assassination of political opponents, brutal and unmentionable attacks on women and
children, and the smaller crimes of burnings, mutilations of cattle, and robbery. It is true that you can find here and there small districts which are not affected by these crimes, and whore the people are living in comparative security, but these districts are not large and they are the exception to the general rule prevailing throughout the country. In the capital of Southern Ireland itself scenes of disorder and violence occur every day. People are constantly held up in the streets by men armed with revolvers and robbed. There is not the faintest protection. Houses are entered and looted on the outskirts of the city, and day and night there is firing and fighting, sometimes of a very violent character, in the streets of Dublin itself. Since the 26th June, the date of the battle at the Four Courts, Dublin, ordinary outrages have increased and are growing worse. There is, too, the desecration and burning of churches hitherto unknown in Ireland, and outrages on women are of constant occurrence. I have a list of such cases which came into my hands only a few days ago. A newly married young woman, the wife of a man resident in this country, went over to visit her relations in one of the disturbed parts of Ireland, and within 48 hours the house in which she was living was entered and she was outraged by four men and left in a terrible condition.

Mr. WHEATLEY: What is the name of the town?

Colonel GRETTON: I am not going to give any name. Obviously I cannot expose these people to further outrages.

Mr. WHEATLEY: I am not asking the name of any person. I want to know the name of the town.

Colonel GRETTON: And if I gave the name of the town I might lay these people open to further attacks.

Mr. WHEATLEY: Is it in order to withhold the name?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is quite within his rights in withholding names.

Colonel GRETTON: I only withhold them in order to protect these people against further attacks and outrages. Their lives, indeed, might be in danger if I gave names. [An HON. MEMBER: "We
do not believe you!"] Large bodies of people in this House and in this country will believe that I do not make statements except on good authority. I have heard of another case of a man resident in Ireland who, on returning to his home after a few days' absence, found his daughter tied naked to a tree near the door. She had been outraged by four men and was in a deplorable condition. The unfortunate man was so desperate—

Mr. WHEATLEY: Is it in order for an hon. Member to make scandalous assertions like this against a respectable section of His Majesty s subjects without producing any evidence to support them?

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Gentleman is quite within his rights in withholding names, and so is the hon. Member who has raised the question, but the rule here is to listen to opposing opinions.

Mr. WHEATLEY: But these are scandalous charges. [An HON. MEMBER: "And they are not true."]

Colonel GRETTON: My charge is a general charge of disorder in the South of Ireland—disorder which affects the lives and property of persons. I am making no charge against any individual. I have carefully refrained from doing so.

Mr. McENTEE: Is it not a fact that the honour of women is held infinitely higher by the people in Ireland than by the people of this country?

Mr. SPEAKER: I believe that is so.

Mr. McENTEE: Then I protest against these statements being made without any proof.

Mr. SPEAKER: I can only repeat that it is quite in order to withhold names.

Colonel GRETTON: It no doubt was the case two or three years ago that the feeling as regards women in Ireland was as described by the hon. Member, but it is so no longer, and so far as morality is concerned,.Southern Ireland is falling into a terrible state—[An HON. MEMBER: "It is not true!'] I could give many more cases, for they are of common occurrence. Then it is well known that the railways— the Great Southern and Western and some parts of the Midland and Great Western—have been subjected to much destruction. Hon. Members can easily ascertain that if they endeavour to travel
by those lines. Signal boxes have been burned, bridges destroyed, rails torn up, and the railway communication in Southern Ireland is no longer reliable. Many parts of the country can only be reached by goods and passengers travelling along insecure roads. Some parts of Southern Ireland are in actual danger of famine and starvation during the coming winter owing to the breakdown of the ordinary communications, such is the state of chaos that prevails. In many districts roving bands, sometimes calling themselves Free Staters, sometimes Republicans, and sometimes having no name at all, enter houses and take away what they want. [An HON. MEMBER: "The Black and Tans did that!"] I am trying to explain what is happening now. I am trying to point out the kind of foundation on which this House is now endeavouring to set up a new Constitution in Southern Ireland. These facts must be admitted by everyone who knows the country. One charge is that previous Governments and the Press have not kept the people informed of what is going on in Ireland. I have here a statement from the columns of the "Irish Times," which shows that a measure of censorship is still exercised over the Press in this matter. I will read the headings of the reports of outrages on two days:

4th November.

War on Railways. Train derailed and lines destroyed.
Raids in Dublin Post Offices. Robbery of Rotunda Rink.
War in Kerry. General destruction.
Lively Nights in Louth. National troops attacked.
Bomb works havoc at Ardee.
Prolonged firing in Dundalk.
Mail train attacked.
Messrs. Guinness's offices raided.
Bridges blown up and signal cabins burned.
7th November.

Big County Cork Fight. Towns lost and won—heavy casualties.
Cork in darkness.
Two sailors shot (Cork).
Man shot in a jail (Limerick).
Fight in a valley (Waterford). Capture of road mines.
Ambush victims. Funerals at Dundalk.
Motor car fired at (Tubbercurry); young man shot dead.
Bombs in Sligo. Shops wrecked.
Civic Guard raided (Roscommon). Clothing and handcuffs taken.
Mr. Cosgrave himself stated in a speech:
Unless the criminal situation in the country be dealt with, and it cannot be dealt with by any organisation the Government can set up, it must be dealt with by the healthy and active co-operation of every section of the community.
That is an admission that his Government has hitherto been powerless to deal with this deplorable and horrible situation. Southern Ireland is in a state of anarchy and civil war. I think that these facts should be in the mind of the House when it makes its decision whether this Constitution is to be established by law and by an Act of this Parliament. It should be aware that the foundation on which it is building is a shifting and uncertain sand. There are few people who are thoroughly well acquainted with the circumstances of Southern Ireland who have any doubts on this matter. Most of those who know what is going on there from day to day think that nothing can come except further chaos and further misery The Provisional Government itself is, as I am informed, in a bankrupt condition. Its estimated expenditure is notless than £40,000,000, and its estimated revenue, on the most sanguine basis, even if it can collect all the revenues due to it, is not more than £27,000,000. They have not hitherto been able to collect more than £13,000,000, leaving a very large deficiency still to be collected. The larger part of their revenue, in fact the only part of their revenue upon which they can rely in Southern Ireland, is that which is derived from the breweries and distilleries, which have to pay their licence duties.
I have received a letter from a resident in one of the quieter counties in Ireland —one of those which are held to be undisturbed. He is a considerable landowner, but he says that he cannot collect his rents, and is thus without means, so his rates are not paid. [An HON. MEMBER: "Good!"] Yes, but he cannot pay his taxes to the Government, because he has not the means. He cannot pay the death duties, because he cannot sell the land; no one would be willing to buy it under the present conditions. He is, therefore, helpless and unable to pay his taxes. The bank in that part of Ireland where the greater part of the business is done was raided and robbed, and the bankers, therefore, had to stop operations. That from a comparatively quiet and undisturbed part of Ireland, is very
significant. I earnestly appeal to the Government to give us some explanation on these very serious questions arising out of the situation which I have endeavoured very inadequately to put before the House for its consideration, and I ask hon. Members to face the facts of the situation, and not to look upon some imaginary Ireland, but upon the actual Ireland as it is to-day. They will then have to consider, in the not unlikely event of this Provisional Government, this Constitution, this Treaty breaking down, what course it will be incumbent upon this country to take in order to establish law and order in the unhappy land of Southern Ireland.

Sir JOHN SIMON: The hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down began his speech by saying that he did not propose to invite the House to reject this Bill, and I feel sure that, in making that announcement, he was meeting the general feeling of the House. That being so, I find it a little difficult to understand the exact purpose that is served by his collection of alarming incidents alleged to have occurred in recent months in the South of Ireland. It is much to be desired that this Debate should not be a contest between different sides as to who can pile the largest amount of blame on this quarter or on that for past events in Ireland. It must be clear to the hon. and gallant Gentleman that, if recitals such as he has been giving to the House were to be regarded as the staple of the Debate, then there would be a good deal to be said from other quarters of the House in complaint of other instances of misconduct.
I rise to express, on behalf of myself and my Friends with whom I am associated, our complete concurrence with what the Prime Minister said at the opening of the Debate. He pointed out, and I think it is one of the encouraging features of the situation, that this Constitution is a Constitution which has been drafted in Ireland by Irishmen for Ireland. In that respect it differs from the two Gladstonian schemes, from the Act of 1914, and from the Act of 1920. The procedure that has been followed is, however, by no means a novel or a revolutionary procedure. As the Prime Minister pointed out, the Constitutions under which different parts of
our Empire are now working are in a very large measure Constitutions which have been settled on the soil where they were to operate, by the people who were to live under them. The Dominion of Canada, which, in Article 2 of the Treaty, is specially referred to, lives, it is true, under a Constitution which is contained in an Imperial Act; but that Imperial Act did nothing more than embody in legislative form the great collection of Resolutions which had been arrived at in Quebec as a result of long debate and ultimate agreement between the Canadians themselves. The Constitution of Australia is not to be found in any enacting Section of any British Act of Parliament at all. The Constitution of Australia is scheduled to a Statute of 1900, in exactly the same way in which it is proposed that this Irish Constitution should be scheduled to this present Bill. Perhaps the most remarkable case of all is the most recent, for the Constitution of the Union of South Africa was at length arrived at as the result of discussion in South Africa itself, and it was carried through this House, within the recollection of a good many hon. Members, in the year 1909, without the alteration of a single sentence.
It may be suggested that these instances are not exactly in point, because they are all instances of a union which is being effected between areas that hitherto have not been so closely federated; but the principle that Constitutions in our Empire have usually been found to have a permanent basis in the cases where they have been arrived at and settled on the soil affected by them, is by no means limited to the different Federal unions under the British Crown. I believe it would be true to say that Constitutions which promote prosperity and loyalty, and which have been found to be lasting Constitutions for subordinate States in our Empire, have, almost without exception, either actually or virtually, been framed by those who were to live under them themselves. I think that that circumstance may well be set against some of the gloomy records and forebodings of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, for, at any rate, there is a real clement of hope and confidence here, in that this Constitution is not a Constitution which the British Parliament formulates and offers to confer upon Ireland; it is a Constitution which
Irishmen themselves have drawn up, and which they now apply to the Imperial Parliament to ratify.
There is a second consideration which, T think, goes a long way. It is not immaterial to note that, since the Treaty was effected and was authorised by this House, there has been, undoubtedly, in this country of England, an increasing support for the scheme embodied in the Treaty. I have noticed, on examining the records, that, when the Bill for the ratification of the Treaty was proposed in the last Parliament, there was a Division, in which 58 Members of the late House voted in the minority. I do not think that that phenomenon will be repeated. At least two Members who voted in that minority have since, like sensible men, become members of His Majesty's present Government, and share the responsibility—I see one of them sitting on the Front Bench now—of recommending this Constitution to the House of Commons. I am the more glad, therefore, to learn from the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just spoken that, so far as he is concerned, and I assume, so far as, his Friends are concerned, they do not propose to divide the House on this Motion.
But there is a third consideration, and I do not think the hon. and gallant Gentleman's view of the matter is the one which best corresponds with the information which reaches many of us from Ireland. I do not believe that the situation in Ireland is going from bad to worse. On the contrary, there are very strong reasons for hoping and supposing that, since the Treaty was signed, the situation as regards acceptance of the Constitution has improved. Let me call attention to these two or three facts. The Treaty was signed on 6th December of last year. When the question of the ratification of that Treaty came before the Dail, as it did very shortly afterwards, it was approved only by the very narrowest majority. It was approved only, I think, by a majority of seven, 64 voting; in favour and 57 against it. That was the situation in the very part of the country which is to be affected by this Constitution less than a year ago, and it is surely obvious that the situation, instead of getting worse, is, in fact, becoming very considerably better. When the elections took place in Southern
Ireland last Midsummer, the result of them, as the House knows well, was substantially to increase the demonstration of support for the Treaty. Recent divisions which have taken place in the Dail have shown larger majorities still.
There was a very tragic event which occurred in Ireland in August last which, I believe, did more to consolidate the opinion of Southern Ireland in favour of this Treaty than all the arguments which have been addressed in support of it. When, within the space of a fortnight, Arthur Griffiths died and Michael Collins met his violent death, that tragic combination of circumstances did more to consolidate the opinion of Southern Ireland in favour of accepting this Constitution and honourably working under it even than the boldness which they exhibited in negotiation, and I believe it to be a wholly false picture of the present state of Irish opinion to suggest that they are not prepared to accept this Constitution and to work it honestly and honourably. As far as any indications known to me are concerned, the ratification of this Constitution is not opposed, apparently, by the Southern Unionists of Ireland, who suffered terribly in recent months and years, but who, none the less, do not apparently resist that which the House is now asked to accomplish.
That being so, the question really comes back to the simple and practical question which the Prime Minister put in his opening remarks. I was amused to notice that the Prime Minister does that which statesmen always do when they refer to the legal profession. He gave the House to understand that the law was a mystery which no business man could ever hope to fathom. Then he proceeded to put forward a very admirable, very complete and perfectly convincing argument, such as any lawyer would at once accept, to prove that the Constitution was within the Treaty.

Sir F. BANBURY: Ho had been told it by a lawyer.

Sir J. SIMON: I ask the House to observe how simple it is. The truth is, as I have often had occasion to observe, that there is nothing in this world so technical as a layman who is trying to talk law, and there is nothing in the world so simple as the legal principle which lies at the bottom of the solution of a question such as the question whether
this Constitution is within the Treaty. The Prime Minister, in a sentence, put a conclusive argument. It is, I apprehend, impossible for any Constitutional student, whether lawyer or layman, to suggest that this Constitution is not within the Treaty, for, if, by the express terms of the document, there were anything in any of its Clauses which went beyond the terms of the Treaty
any such excess is here and now declared to be void and of none effect.
I should like to say one word on two or three of the detailed points which the hon. and gallant Gentleman raised. First of all, he was concerned because of the Article in the Treaty which deals with Irish citizenship. I do not wish to take a part in the Debate which would be more properly taken by the Attorney-General—and those who know the hon. Gentleman will know that there is no lawyer in England more competent to give us guidance and sound reasoning on a subject of this sort—but it really is fallacious to suppose that in the British Empire, as it exists to-day, there are not many cases in which citizenship in some part of our Dominions is not the same thing as British citizenship here at home. There is at least one case, which will be known to those whose duty it is to study such things, which occurred during the War, in which a man who was admittedly an Australian citizen, declared to be such by Australian law, was none the less interned in this country as an enemy alien, and was declared to be rightly interned under the Regulations then in force. It is not a fact, therefore, that there is a complete correspondence between citizenship in every part of the Empire and citizenship here at home. It is much to be desired that there should be, and in the last Naturalisation Act, for which the Government of which I was a member was responsible, there is a Section which provides that the different Dominions of the Crown, of which Southern Ireland will now be one, are able to adhere to our own rules if they choose to declare their willingness to do so. That, I think, is the real answer about citizenship. Then the hon. and gallant Gentleman was concerned about Article 49, which provides that:
Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State shall not be committed to active participation in any war without the assent of its Parliament.
Would it not be just as well that in this matter we should recognise how the facts really stand? It is only a month or two ago that the late Government in this country, whether wisely or unwisely I do not stop to inquire, actually sent out messages to the different Dominions of the Empire in order to inquire what measure of support they would be prepared to give to the Mother Country in the unhappy event of a new war. What is the good after that of not facing the fact that, as our Empire grows the great Dominions of the Crown are Dominions which give us their support and assistance, not because we are in a position to compel them to do so, but because they are willing to give us that active support in every case where our cause is just?
I take the third example, the question of appeals to the Privy Council, a rather technical subject really, but the hon. and gallant Gentleman, I think, was not justified in his criticism. The truth is that both in Australia and in South Africa there have been restrictions put upon appeals to our Privy Council here, which are at least as strict as the restriction which is to be found in this Constitution. This Constitution preserves the right to appeal to the Privy Council by what is called special leave. It gets rid of the right of appeal without special leave. That is exactly the situation of the Union of South Africa to-day, with this additional provision, that in the case of the Union of South Africa the Parliament of South Africa has reserved the power at any time by further legislation of its own to cut down the subjects on which even special leave may be given. I take these three examples, because they seem to me examples which can be dealt with very fairly and summarily to show that in these matters the Constitution is not open to objection. I recognise to the full that the Constitution contains a number of matters which were not likely to be inserted in it if it was drawn up by Englishmen. That is perfectly true. But what we have in this matter to realise is that the House of Commons, by confirming this Constitution, is taking that bold step which the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) described the other day as a great act of daring faith.
I should like to make one reference to the past. By passing this Irish Free
State Constitution, the Imperial Parliament, is definitely abandoning the attempt to govern Ireland at Westminster, and it is definitely declaring for a solution on the basis of Dominion Home Rule. It is nearly 30 years ago since Mr. Joseph Chamberlain, speaking in this House on the First Reading of the second of Mr. Gladstone's Home Rule Bills, objected to that Bill, and made this observation:
Does anybody doubt; that if Ireland were a thousand miles away from England, she would have been long before this a self-governing Colony?
Mr. Joseph Chamberlain went on to argue that the Bill of 1893 was a dangerous Measure because, he said, it attempted to draw a line at a place where a line can never permanently rest. It was a Bill, he thought, which conceded a certain measure of autonomy, and at the same time leaves things in a state of unstable equilibrium because it withholds full autonomous rights. The most important thing to notice about this Constitution is that that criticism, which has inspired so much of the opposition to Horns Rule schemes, is certainly met by this present Measure, for the most striking feature of this Constitution is that it completely confers upon Ireland the status of a British Dominion. As to proximity, I think the last 30 years have introduced new considerations which most of us would be willing to recognise. The march of British science has really brought all the Dominions of the Crown in one sense into much closer touch with the Mother Country, and on the other hand experience, both ill peace and in war, has shown to this country the danger of facing in Ireland a community, the majority of which protest against the treatment of Irish affairs by a London Parliament, and regard themselves as unwilling subjects of English rule. That danger is intensified by the fact that there are only 60 miles of sea between ourselves and the sister island. It seem to me that the part which was taken only a year ago by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Birmingham who, I think, is sitting now in the seat from which his distinguished father delivered the speech to which I have referred, when he explained his own reason for his own change of view, is one which we might well take as an example of statesmanship in facing this new situation. When the hon. and gallant Gentleman asked us to face the facts, these are the facts which he must face. When he asks us to con-
sider what is the foundation upon which we are building, I reply that the foundation is that which was pointed out by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for West Birmingham (Mr. Austen Chamberlain) in the speech to which I have referred. In that speech at the Unionist conference, 12 months ago, dealing with the grant of self-government to the Transvaal, he used these words:
By a great act of daring faith they conferred upon our recent enemies in the Transvaal and the Orange Free State on the moral of our victory, full self-government. I voted against them. I thought it a rash and wicked thing to do. If we could have seen further into the future, if I could have voted in that Division with the knowledge I have to-day, I should have known that that great act of faith was not, as I thought, a destruction of our policy, but its completion and its fulfilment
In discussing Irish affairs there is no section of this House that can hold itself to be always wise or completely blameless. Do not let us on any side of the House enter into competition either of criticism or of self-praise. Let us, at any rate, do this one thing which it is in our power to do in order to give the whole Irish situation its best chance—a thing that was done by this House when it passed unanimously the British North America Act, when it passed unanimously the Commonwealth of Australia Act, when it passed unanimously the Union of South Africa Act; let us to-day, with united voice and without any dissent, wish God speed to the Constitution which is thus submitted for our ratification.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for FOREIGN AFFAIRS (Mr. Ronald McNeill): I cannot forget that it was my fortune, when first I had the honour of addressing this House from the side opposite, to speak on the subject of Ireland, and I had the difficult task of following the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just sat down. I am afraid that I made a very poor hand in answering his eloquence and his arguments. I do not propose this evening to make any attempt to reply to him, though I must confess that not a few of the things which he said presented to me almost an insuperable temptation to answer them. I must resist that temptation. I am only prompted to say anything by a personal allusion that he made to myself, with his usual courtesy, which requires a few words from me in reply. I feel all the more called upon to do so be-
cause I noticed that, in the course of the election oratory in the country, a suggestion was made that I, in accepting a seat on this bench at the very moment when the Government that I was joining was about to ratify this Treaty—I having been a very persistent opponent of the policy embodied in this Bill—was surrendering my convictions.

Sir J. SIMON: I did not say so.

Mr. McNEILL: The right hon. Gentleman did not make that observation, but it has been made. It was stated, in terms, that I had accepted office to ratify this Treaty. The same charge has been made against others. So far as I am concerned, there is not a shadow of foundation for any such reproach. I have not, as I propose to show, taken office to ratify this Treaty, nor have I surrendered the position that I have always occupied in relation to the policy, nor have I modified nor altered in the slightest degree the opinions that I have always held in regard to it. I must, perhaps, express myself almost in the terms of a personal explanation. Highly as I appreciate the honour of holding even a subordinate place in the Government of my fight hon. Friend the Prime Minister, I would not, as he very well knows, have accepted any position, no matter how insignificant, if the policy which we are discussing now was still an open question in any sense of the word. I made it perfectly clear months ago, speaking in this House, that while I regarded the Treaty and the policy of the Treaty as a disastrous and indefensible transaction, T had to recognise, as I then stated, that the mischief had been done beyond repair, and that Parliament had no choice but to carry it out to a conclusion.
More than that, the House will remember that, if it had not been for the Dissolution of the late Parliament, a conference of the Unionist Associations would have been held on the very day that the polling took place in connection with the General Election. That proposed conference met with a good deal of criticism throughout the country, and I had given notice, many weeks before the Dissolution, that I would move a Resolution at that conference, in which I expressly acknowledged, in terms, that the Treaty which had been made with Southern Ireland could not and ought not
to be abrogated. Therefore, in my judgment, all that remains for this Parliament to do, as was very well expressed by my hon. Friend the Member for Upton (Mr. Margesson), who seconded the Address, is a pure formality, merely to seal an instrument already signed by the late Government in the name of the English people. The present Parliament and Government have no option and, therefore, have absolutely no responsibility in the matter. If I thought it were otherwise, then, instead of standing here, I should be doing my humble best to oppose this Bill from some other quarter of the House. However, there the Bill is. The right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken did not actually reproach me but with that cleverness which he always shows, in a rhetorical sense, he did so by a compliment. His compliment was intended to convey the impression that I had been brought to a more sane frame of mind. I have endeavoured to show the House that I have not thought it necessary to change any opinion I have ever held, and I do not think that anything I have done is inconsistent.
In conclusion, following up what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has said, I should like to say on my own behalf—and I may say it on behalf of those who have shared my view of this matter—that, notwithstanding all that we have said and done in the past, from the day that I first addressed this House in reply to the right hon. and learned Gentleman, up to the present moment, no one more than myself earnestly hopes that the policy which is now being brought to a completion may be for the peace, happiness and blessing of my native country. I was much impressed by the concluding words of the Leader of the Labour Opposition, in the prayer to Almighty God that His blessing may rest upon this policy. With that expression and prayer T should like humbly to associate myself.

Mr. F. GRAY: I am very conscious, as a very young Member, of the lack of wisdom in intervening in debate before being fully acquainted even with the position of friends and foes in the House. It is particularly unwise to launch one's first ship upon the Irish Sea. I have been encouraged, nevertheless, to intervene by a distinguished Member on the other side, who is of opinion that I have a large
knowledge of the state of affairs in Ireland. If I may say so without transgressing the Rules of the House, this is untrue. It is true that I have spent a long period during the present year in Ireland, watching very closely the sorrows through which both the North and the South of Ireland have passed. I have there enjoyed the friendship, the kindness and the hospitality of the leaders of all sections and of all parties, and if in return for that I can make some little contribution to this Debate, I shall be grateful. It is a matter to be regretted that this Bill is introduced from the other side of the House. There are hon. Members of this House who have not had the advantages of education such as some of ns have had, and I wonder what they think of the standard of public life when they see this Measure being adavnced in this House by the representatives of a party which, for a quarter of a century, has advanced an entirety converse policy, which has caused so much sorrow and so much grief both to the people of Ireland and to England, and has meant great loss of wealth in both cases.
I am not, however, disposed to quarrel with the person or the party that advances good Measures. This I believe to be a good Measure, but not the concluding Measure which will bring lasting peace to Ireland. I believe it will be, perhaps, 25 years before peace may come to Ireland, and that peace will come through the setting up of a United Parliament for all Ireland. That, if it comes, must come from those representing Northern Ireland. Until they make, that step, it is for this country to protect the rights of Northern Ireland. It must be obvious to all that this Measure, introduced on that side of the House, and supported on this side, will be passed. That being so, all that can be done by a Debate here is practically to inflame passions in both the North and the South of Ireland, which we should all deeply regret. For those representing Northern Ireland I have the greatest respect. While I differ from them I realise that they, at least, have been consistent throughout in support of their policy, and, as I know so well, they have faced untold dangers from day to day with the greatest possible courage. I appeal to them that nothing should be said here
which will further inflame passion in the South or in the North of Ireland.

6.0 p.m.

Captain CRAIG: I wish as soon as possible to place before the House the views of hon. Members who come from Ulster. The House will remember that when the Truce was entered into, and during the time that the negotiations were going on which led up to the Treaty, the Ulster party took up the position that, providing their interests were not interfered with or encroached upon, it was not their business to interfere between the British Government and the representatives of Southern Ireland in any arrangement they might come to in reference to the government of Southern Ireland. That position I always adhered to, right up to the time the Treaty was published to the world. It is true that there was a condition—more than an implied condition—that the interests of Ulster should not be prejudiced in any way without Ulster being consulted thereon. Relying on that condition we held it to be our duty not to interfere between the Government of this country and the representatives from Southern Ireland who came to meet them. If the Government had adhered to the condition which I have mentioned, our attitude with regard to the Treaty would have been the same as our attitude had been during the negotiations. That was that, although not one single colleague of mine from Ulster looked upon the Treaty as anything but a most-disastrous document; that in spito of the fact that we did not for one single moment agree with the rosy prophecies which were made from various parts of the House as to the future of Southern Ireland: in spite of the fact that on the contrary we then foresaw and now see a most horrible condition of affairs existing in Ireland; and in spite of the fact that we consider things in Ireland are rapidly going from bad to worse; in spite of all those things we would have felt that it-was out duty not to interfere with the Government in any arrangements which they might take with Southern Ireland.
Our express hostility to the Treaty has been on the ground that it has interfered seriously with the interests of Ulster. I need not go into that question now at any length, but any hon. Member who has
followed these discussions knows well to what I refer. I refer first to the fact that as the Treaty was drawn up Ulster was included in it, in spite of the fact that every man who signed that document knew well that we would never consent. Then there was the question of the boundaries, about which I am not going to sneak to-day, and there was also the question of the Council, which will be referred to when we come to the second Bill, on which I will not dilate now. Those questions, every one of which seriously affected Ulster, prevented us from carrying out the policy of neutrality which we would have carried out had the Treaty left us severely alone. But in spite of those serious blots on the Treaty from our point of view, the Treaty has been passed in this House, and, as has been said by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs, the matter has now passed out of our hands, and I am here to say that, so far as the Ulster Members are concerned, the Government need fear no opposition to the passing of this Bill.
I think that the attitude of the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) in going into the history of this question was not a suitable one to take in this Debate, but I do desire, without going into the condition in which Ireland is, to appeal to the Government, in any reply which may be made at the end of the Debate to the various speeches, to say something as to their policy towards the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland, who have lost so much of their property and have been driven out of the country in such large numbers. That I consider to be one of the greatest blots on the policy of the late Government, and I sincerely trust that the new Government are not going to follow their footsteps in this matter. Whatever was said as to the Treaty, it was clearly understood by everybody that the authorities in Ireland were expected to treat fairly every section of the community, and yet from the ill-fated moment that the Treaty was passed, and the Government disbanded the Royal Irish Constabulary and withdrew the soldiers, a campaign of destruction and boycotting was started against the Unionists in the South and West of Ireland. Destruction to the extent of millions of pounds has been done. Many of the finest houses in
the country have been burned to the ground, and, lately, thousands of unfortunate Unionists have had to leave everything behind them in Ireland and flee to this country. I hope that before this Debate is over the Government may give those unfortunate people, and give us who sympathise with them so much, some indication of the policy which they are going to pursue.
I advocated in this House a long time ago that the late Government's policy should be that the men who had their houses burned to the ground and their property destroyed must be compensated, and if the Free State failed to do so the Government's duty was to see that the compensation was paid, and I maintain that that could be done, and that it ought, to be done. A declaration should be made to the Government of the Free State that these men should not be allowed to be driven out into the world without a penny of what belongs to them, and if the Free State refuse or fail to pay these compensation claims, the Government of this country should pay them and charge them to the Irish Free State. I trust that later on there will be some statement of policy on these lines, which will hold out some hope to these unfortunate people before the end of the Debate.
Our position is perfectly clear. We do not believe and never have believed that the Treaty was the right method of dealing with Ireland. We have been amply justified in our belief by what has happened during the last year. When the Treaty was published the late Prime Minister informed the House that at last peace had been secured in Ireland, but hon. Members, even if they do not believe the horrors which were related by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton)—every one of which is literally true—will agree from what they do know of the State of Southern Ireland and of what has been going on in Ireland during the last year that peace is the last word which you can apply to the state of affairs in that country. So far as we can see, things are going steadily from bad to worse, and if we could go back and put Ireland into the position in which she was three years ago we would do it. But I know that that is impossible. We have said in our speeches that the Treaty must be given a chance. It must be given a chance if
for no other reason than that things have been brought to such a pass that it would be folly of the worst description to go back on it now. The Treaty must go through, it must be given the fullest chance and, if it is successful, I shall be very pleased. But I have very little hope of that. Yet I fully realise that it would be folly, second only to the folly which prompted the late Ministry to sign the Treaty originally, to go back on it now. But while we offer no opposition to the passing of this Measure into law we think that the late Government in signing the Treaty, did one of the worst day's work which any Government ever did in this country.

Sir FREDERICK BANBURY: The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) drew a very glowing picture of what was going to result from the Treaty. I think that it was very bold of him to have drawn such a glowing picture when we think of what has happened since the Treaty was signed a year ago. Only a year ago the late Prime Minister in this House, in introducing the Treaty, told us in a very eloquent peroration—I think I remember his exact words—that in future our success would be her joys and our grief would be her sorrows. These are very beautiful words, but they have not been borne out. Instead of the Treaty having resulted in peace it has resulted in murder, arson, and other outrages of the worst description. But I do not want to discuss that. I am one of those who voted against it, and it is one of the acts of my Parliamentary life of which I am proud, and I believe that in future generations by those who read the history of the times none will be more acclaimed and supported than those of us who voted against the Treaty.
But I do not think that that is the question now. We were beaten and we have got to accept our defeat. Therefore, so far as I am concerned, I shall not vote against any Bill which enacts the Treaty, but what we have got to see is: does this Bill carry out the provisions of the Treaty? and if not, then we ought to amend it in Committee in such a way as to make it carry out the provisions of the Treaty. The right hon. and learned Gentleman told us that it was difficult for a layman to understand legal technicali-
ties. I quite agree. Then he went on to say that, so far as ho was concerned, he was in agreement with Lord Hewart that the Constitution did carry out the provisions of the Treaty. In my experience I have never known one hon. and learned Gentleman to agree with another. I think that this is almost the first time I have known such a thing to occur. Naturally it made me a little suspicious. I then remembered that both the Noble Lord and the right hon. and learned Gentleman were Radicals, that both of them had been in favour of Home Rule for a great number of years, and I was not surprised that on this particular occasion they agreed. By the Constituent Act the Constitution is made subject to the provision that
if any law made thereunder is in any respect repugnant to any of the provisions of the Scheduled Treaty, it shall, to the extent only of such repugnancy, be absolutely void and inoperative.
That attracts the lawyers because, naturally, if something occurs and one lawyer says that it is not inconsistent with the Treaty, there will be argument amongst the lawyers, one saying that it is consistent and another saying that it. is not. Who is then to decide? In order to make confusion worse confounded the Bill does not stop there. The quotation goes on:
and the Parliament and the Executive Council of the Irish Free State shall respectively pass such farther legislation and do all such other things as may lie necessary to implement the Scheduled Treaty.
Who is to compel the Parliament of a Free State to pass such legislation? If they do not pass it, what is to happen? Surely the Treaty is here in black and white. Why not enact it again? Unless the lawyers thought that there was something in the Constitution which did not agree with the Treaty, they would not have put this in. I have not the honour of the acquaintance of the learned Attorney-General, but I see him on the Treasury Bench. I hope I shall get excellent advice from him in the near future. I see that the learned Solicitor-General is also present. I am sure they could have drawn up a Constitution which would have agreed in every particular with the Treaty, had they been asked to do so. That is all we have to sec to; we are bound to see that the Treaty is enacted in the Constitution,
and nothing else. Here is a point which is very important. In the Treaty it is enacted that the Army in Ireland shall be limited. Article 8 says:
With a view to securing the observance of the principle of international limitation of armaments, if the Government of the Irish Free State establishes and maintains a military defence force, the establishments thereof shall not exceed in size such proportion of the military establishments maintained in Great Britain as that which the population of Ireland bears to the population of Great Britain.
I do not see anything whatever about that in the Constitution. I may be wrong, being only a layman. But, supposing that I am right, and that the Free State has a larger army than is proportionate to the population of Ireland in relation to Great Britain, there is nothing in the Constitution about that. What on earth could we do? I am glad that the Prime Minister of the last Government is present. The right hon. Gentleman will remember the speech ho made at Carnarvon, where he pointed to the danger of Ireland having a great army. I attach very much importance to the safeguard which the Government said was in this Treaty. It is absolutely essential that we put down Amendments, not to wreck the Bill or to prevent the Bill passing, but to bring the Bill into line with the Treaty.

Mr. SAKLATVALA: I beg to move, to leave out the word "now," and at the end of the Question to add the words "upon this day three months."
I realise the unpopularity I am courting in taking this step, but it was distinctly understood between my electors and myself that they did not wish me to back up a Treaty which was based upon coercion, and was signed under duress. I do not now speak on behalf of the Labour party in the House. I wish that to be made perfectly clear. I maintain that, perhaps as a purist, I adhere in the Amendment to a principle that the Labour party has laid down, namely, the principle of self-determination. It is not to be understood that I do not share the wishes or the prayers of my chief, nor is it to be understood I have not the same desire as my colleagues, but I must frankly admit that I do not share their hopes. I believe that the only cure will come when either this Government or a future Labour Government tells our
friends in Ireland that they have a right to a genuine and bonâ fide, self-determined voice of their own. Unless that is done, neither the Treaty nor the Constitution nor the Bill now before the House is likely to do what we all, against our convictions, hope that they may do. We talk of a Treaty. Hon. Members on all sides of the House have written and spoken in unmistakable terms in expressing their views that the unfortunate part of the Treaty was that the signatures were obtained under duress. I feel that that duress was undoubtedly there, and the unfortunate fact was that it need not have been there. If matters had been left to the free will and the good sense of the people, the result would have been quite- different from what it has been.
We have heard to-day quotations and illustrations of similar enactments for colonies and dominions of the Empire. Is there any real parallel between those Constitutions and the hopes and desires of the people of the countries concerned and the hopes and desires of the Irish people? Was Australia not rejoicing and waiting almost to a man and woman for the day when her Constitution would be confirmed by this House? Was not South Africa, after a great war and defeat, gratefully awaiting the day when the Treaty would be passed and the little minority of the republican in a constitutional manner would be permitted to express themselves as a minority? The people of Canada, too, were determined to have their Constitution and to work it. The case of Ireland is different. It is no use our pretending that it is not so. We cannot adopt the policy that by driving deeper into the soil the roots of a cactus, and by carefully covering it with soil, roses will grow later on. I pay my homage to the great spirit that reigns in this House to-day, and to the great spirit that pervades the people who sent Members to represent them in this House. I admire that spirit at its full value. In spite of all the bitter differences in the past, we are determined to come to a genuine and sincere unanimity upon this question. Were we settling the matter in dispute between ourselves here, that spirit would give us a permanent solution: but our unanimity does not affect the disunity in Ireland, and that point does not seem to be before this House as emphatically as it ought to be.
Was there ever an instance in the history of treaties where immediately after a treaty had been signed, two out of the five signatories had to repudiate their signatures as not having been put down with a bonâ fide and conscientious intention? The hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) was pointing out to us the great improvement, which has taken place since the Treaty. I am sorry to hear argument of that kind being advanced on rather imperfect observation. [HON. MEMRERS: "Hear, hear!"] The imperfect observation which I wish to point out is not referred to in the spirit of the hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton). It is quite in another direction. In the first instance, what is the constituent assembly which has sent us this document? Soon after the Treaty and, apart from anything that was ever contemplated at the time of the Treaty, a truce was entered into between the two factious parties in Ireland creating an artificial Dail to tackle the problem of the- Treaty. I take no sides with either of the Irish parties, but I maintain that truce—or that promise to observe a truce —was not fair to the people, of Great Britain, and it was certainly more than unfair to the people of Ireland. Under the truce it was decided to call an artificial constituent assembly, and when the moment came, even that truce was not observed, and the so-called constituent assembly cannot on any bonâ fide and sincere principle of self-determination, be accepted as a truly and properly elected Dail representing the people of Ireland in the ratios and the proportions in which they stand. I was present at the last great Labour Conference in Ireland; I attended its sittings in Dublin and I saw there written down in black and white and heard proclaimed from the platform—
A plague on both your houses"—
on both parties, both the pro-Treaty and the anti-Treaty party. I have heard it declared that Irish Labour, well organised, is determined to work for a worker' republic. These are the views which are being expressed, and the Labour party in Ireland is bound to come into its. own, however much hon. Members may jeer or laugh. The Republicans are there; it is no use denying that they are there in very large numbers, and it is extremely doubtful, if coercive
measures were not taken, whether they would not prove themselves to be the majority of the people of Ireland. These facts cannot be ignored, and they cannot be buried or covered up. We are assured by the Prime Minister that, according to Mr. Cosgrave, Ireland is only waiting for the Constitution to be carried through this House, and that they are going to work it out. Mr. Cosgrave knows that he had to shoot four human beings a week ago, and he has had since to take another life by violence—that of Erskine Childers. He knows that the prisons of Ireland are to be filled with thousands of men, and even some women, without charge and without trial. He knows that Ireland is to be prepared to receive this Constitution, not with joy and Hags and illuminations, but with martial law, penalites and threats, imprisonment and ships waiting to depopulate the country. [Interruption.] I will ask you, Mr. Speaker, to save me from those who are pretending to be my friends. I appeal to the Prime Minister and I appeal to the House.
Once, in 1801, our predecessors and your forefathers thought they had worked a great political trick and a mighty political charm when with great unanimity in Dublin and London they brought about the Act of Union. For 120 years that Act of Union has only produced distress to Ireland and disgrace to this country. I, as your friend—not as your critic nor as your opponent—foel that I am in conscience bound not to be a party to another and a greater mockery. Until the Labour party in this country comes into power, until genuine self-determination is permitted to the people of Ireland, there is going to be neither peace nor fidelity to the Treaty, nor the carrying out of the Free State Government, nor any of the "tosh" we have been hearing of late. I am speaking in a most difficult position. I know I seem to be the friend of my enemies and the enemy of my friends, but time and history will prove my case. I shall not be at all sorry or ashamed to say that even if you were all unanimous, I stood aloof and away from you. Within five years this House will find the necessity for undoing this unanimous or semi-unanimous Act after more distress and more suffering. Let me predict that it will be the Labour party sitting on those benches which will have to afford real freedom
to Ireland. Instead of merely expressing a pious opinion, I take my courage in my hands and true to my convictions I move this Amendment in order to create an opportunity for myself to vote against the Bill.

Mr. NEWBOLD: I beg to second the Amendment.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I hope the hon. Member will not proceed to a Division on this Amendment, because the only result will be that he will find himself in the Lobby with a large number of Members with whom he really has no possible point of agreement. The fact of the matter is that we have Die-hards on both sides. Perhaps it is well that we should learn early in the life of this Parliament that Die-hards come together anyhow. We want, at any rate, to understand what happens when out wishes are carried out. I ask the hon. Member for Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) to consider what would happen if he got his way and if this Bill were rejected. It would then appear that Great Britain, having signed the Treaty, is determined by the voice of a new Parliament to cancel the Treaty. I agree with the hon. Member that there was a great deal that was undesirable in the way in which the Treaty was brought about, but whether those methods were desirable or undesirable, we cannot now possibly go back upon the Treaty which was signed, or fail to carry out to the letter the terms of the obligations into which we entered. The speech to which we have just listened, a very eloquent speech, ought to have been delivered not here but in the Dail. Many speeches similar to it were made in the Dail, and the result of those speeches, I may point out, has been civil war in Ireland. There is a definite question which this House has to consider at this moment, and the attitude taken up by the Labour party on that question is that whether the Treaty be bad or good, whatever be the circumstances attendant on the signing of the Treaty, that Treaty has been signed, and we, whether on the Government Benches or the Opposition Benches, are determined to see that Treaty carried out.

Sir JOHN BUTCHER: I should like at the outset to associate myself most cordially with the hope which has fallen from the Prime Minister and the Under-Secre-
tary for Foreign Affairs, that the establishment of this Constitution may inaugurate a new era in Ireland, and bring back to her that peace and happiness to which she has been so long a stranger. No one who has been associated as closely as I have been with the appalling suffering of our fellow-countrymen and women in Ireland could fail ardently to hope that the orgy of crime which still goes on in Ireland may cease, that order may be restored, and protection of life and property afforded to those who have suffered and are suffering so cruelly in Southern Ireland. I regret I cannot take the roseate view of Southern Ireland put forward by the hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon). I wish his view were correct, but I know it is absolutely without foundation. The terrible crimes which have disgraced Ireland and brought misery to her people are still going on.
The position of this House in considering this Bill is an extremely difficult one. We have inherited from the late Government certain obligations—I think one might almost say a damnosa haæreditas. Unfortunately, we are bound to carry out those obligations and to give effect to the Treaty. The time for doing so is short—lamentably short. I will suggest to the Prime Minister in a few moments a mode by which the time can be extended without interfering with any vital interest, while enabling this House to carry out its undoubted obligation of examining this Constitution, seeing whether it is one which ought to be passed unamended, and, if not, amending it and making it conform to the Treaty.
The right hon. Gentleman said that the only question before the House at this moment is—Does the Constitution conform to the Treaty with Ireland? That is no doubt the main question, but I think there is another question which we are bound to consider, and that is this—Does the Constitution involve grave injustice to British subjects in England and elsewhere? I think I can show that it does, and if that be so, I personally would like the Constitution to be amended so as to eliminate those elements of injustice. I, therefore, think we should have more time in which to examine the Constitution. The Prime Minister told us that certain eminent legal authorities had said that the Constitution is in accord with the Treaty.
We are not, I submit, in a law court, but in a House of Parliament, and we are not entitled in this House to shelter ourselves under the ægis of any legal authority, however eminent. Our duty is to examine this Constitution and see whether it is a right one, and it is our obligation to do so. Let us remember that we are to-day doing an irrevocable act, so far as we are concerned. We shall never have another opportunity of revising this Constitution once we have passed it in its present form. The right lion. Member for the Spen Valley (Sir John Simon) rather suggested that it was not a proper thing to amend a Constitution at all, and he pointed to the case of the Constitution of the Union of South Africa and to the case of Canada, as a justification for what he said. Hut he did not tell us, what is nevertheless the fact, that when that Constitution for Canada came before this House for consideration it was largely amended. Many new and important clauses were introduced into it which had not been suggested by the Resolutions of Quebec, and therefore I suggest that the illustration that the right hon. Gentleman put-forward as a reason why we should not amend this Constitution is a good argument for the opposite view.
Let me now point out certain respects in which I think this Constitution deserves our examination and, as I think, amendment. Article I of the Treaty says:
Ireland shall have the same constitutional status in the Community of Nations known as the British Empire as the Dominion of Canada," etc.
What, however, is the first Article of the Constitution? Does it reproduce verbatim Article I of the Treaty I Instead of that, this is put in:
The Irish Free State (otherwise here-matter called or sometimes called—)
a name which I will leave it to the Attorney-General to pronounce—
is a co-equal member of the Community of Nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
That is an absolute falsehood. The Irish Free State is not a co-equal member of this Community of Nations, and let me give one instance in which it is not. One member of that Community of Nations is the United Kingdom, as we must call it for want of a better name. By Clause 4 of the Bill now before us, the right of the United Kingdom to make laws affect-
ing the Irish Free State in certain cases is preserved and acknowledged. If the Irish Free State be co-equal with the United Kingdom, then the Irish Free State should be entitled to legislate for the United Kingdom, but no one, not even the most rapturous supporter of the Irish Free State, would put forward such a claim, and therefore, from that point of view alone, the Irish Free State is not co-equal with the United Kingdom.
Article 2 of the Treaty sets forth:
Subject to the provisions hereinafter set out the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada.
That is a perfectly plain and simple statement, and I cannot conceive why it was not embodied in the Constitution, but, instead of that, Article 2 of the Constitution states:
All powers of government and all authority legislative, executive, and judicial in Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland.
That is very questionable in regard to any Constitution, but in the case of the Trish Free State it is absolutely untrue. Canada was given a Constitution by this House, and the powers of Canada were not derived from the people of Canada, but from this House, and therefore to say that the powers of the Parliament of Ireland are derived from the people of Ireland, when they actually have to come here to get this Constitution accepted, is a statement incapable of substantiation. I therefore ask the Attorney-General to tell us why, instead of this perfectly plain, clear, straightforward Article 2 of the Treaty, we have this not only questionable but inaccurate and entirely untrue statement embodied in the Constitution.
There is something worse than that. Article 3 of the Constitution has been examined from the Irish viewpoint, but it has not yet been examined from the point of view of England and the rest of the Empire. Article 3 says:
Every person…domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State…who was born in Ireland or either of whose parents was born in Ireland, or who has been ordinarily resident in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State…for not less than seven years is a citizen of the Irish Free State.
I would point out that this is an entirely new constitutional practice, and
that there is no such status of a citizen of Great Britain or of Canada.

Mr. J. JONES: You tell the Canadians that.

Sir J. BUTCHER: There is no such thing as a citizen of Canada, constitutionally speaking; there is a British subject. Let me ask the Attorney-General a question. Does this mean that when a person domiciled in Ireland is made a citizen of the Irish Free State he ceases to be a British subject? I hope not, but I should be very glad to get an authoritative statement from the Attorney-General that his citizenship of the Free State does not deprive him of the rights and privileges of a British subject. There is another and more serious question, affecting British subjects in other parts of the Empire besides Ireland, and it is this I want to know what lights a British subject domiciled in England, Scotland, or any other part of our Empire would have if he went to reside in Ireland. Let me take an Englishman domiciled in England who goes to reside in Ireland. According to this Article no matter how long he resides in Ireland, unless he actually gives up his British domicile, his British home, adopts an Irish home, and becomes domiciled in Ireland he will have none of the rights given to an Irishman. He will be a sort of alien, a sort of Uitlander in Ireland, although he is a British subject and goes to reside there. Let me point out what sort of disability a British subject would be liable to if he went to reside in Ireland. Article 7 of the Constitution states:
The dwelling of each citizen is inviolable and shall not be forcibly entered except in accordance with law.
Supposing this Englishman goes to Ireland to reside, unless he becomes an Irish citizen his house is not inviolable, but may be forcibly entered, and it is only the houses of Irish citizens which are made inviolable by this Article. Article 10 of the Constitution states:
All citizens of the Irish Free State…have the right to free elementary education.
The British subject who is an Englishman and who goes over there, however, has no right, either for himself or his children, to any free education at all. Is that a situation in which it is right to place a British subject from England, Scotland, or any
other part of the Empire? Again, the only people who are entitled to exercise the franchise in Southern Ireland are the citizens of the Irish Free State, and therefore the Englishman who goes over there, unless he gives up his English home, can never get a vote in Ireland. He can be called upon to pay taxes—that is certain —but he can never get a vote or exercise the privileges of citizenship. I would ask the Attorney-General whether this is not, a case of grave injustice to British subjects resident in England, Scotland, Northern Ireland, and other parts of the world.
Let me now pass to another respect in which I think the Constitution requires alteration. Article 65 of the Constitution states:
The judicial power of the High Court shall extend to the question of the validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution.
In Article 66 there is a provision that there may be an appeal to the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State in certain cases, which decision is to be final and conclusive. Then there is this proviso:
Nothing in this Constitution shall impair the right of any person to petition His Majesty for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court to His Majesty in Council.
7.0 p.m.
I ask where is that right derived from? At the present moment there is no right for any person in Ireland to appeal to the Privy Council. There is a right, it is quite true, to appeal from the Supreme Court in Ireland to the House of Lords in certain cases, but it is a fundamental part of our Constitution that no person in Ireland can appeal from the decision of any Court to the King in Council. Therefore, when this Constitution says that nothing shall impair the right of any person to appeal to His Majesty the King, I say that there is no such right, and, if there be no right, then you cannot impair it. To say that you cannot impair a non-existing right, certainly does not give a right where there was not one before. I ask the learned Attorney-General to amend this Article by inserting, in very clear and explicit language, a provision in accordance with the Treaty, that there shall be an appeal from the Supreme Court in Ireland on the same lines as there is an appeal from the Supreme Court in Canada to the Privy Council.
I ask the House to remember that this is a vital point. The Privy Council is the only tribunal which can possibly correct the Irish Free State Parliament if it passes laws which are not in accordance with the Constitution. I doubt not that it was intended that the power should be given, but it is not given. This power is all important. There should be some mode of correcting errors of the Irish Parliament if they go beyond their powers under the Constitution und pass laws contrary to it. Some power must be given by which these laws may be brought under review and the matter put right.
Reference has been made by the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) to the Union of South Africa. It is quite true in the Act relating to the Union of South Africa there are words somewhat similar to those in this Constitution which state that nothing is to impair the right of a person to petition for leave to appeal. But there is all the difference in the world between the South Africa Union Act and the present Constitution. When the Union of South Africa was constituted by the Union Act, there were already legislatures in the British Colonies in Sauth Africa, and from each of those British Colonies there was an existing right to appeal to the King in Council.

Mr. J. JONES: There was an Irish Parliament before they ever existed.

Sir J. BUTCHER: I really cannot discuss every interruption. As I have already pointed out there is no right to appeal to the Privy Council from any Court in Ireland. On the other hand, when the South African Union Act was passed, there was an existing right to appeal from all the existing legislatures to the Privy Council, and that right was continued. The words which were inserted in that Act in order to continue a right which existed were perfectly proper. Therefore, I beg the Attorney-General, who I know will give this his perfectly fair consideration, to make this matter clear. It is a point which, as he would be the first to admit, is really of vital and extreme importance to the proper working of the Constitution.
I have taken these illustrations for the purpose of showing that there are serious points to be considered; points which are necessary to be understood, and which
undoubtedly require amending at out-hands. We ought to be given an opportunity, in accordance with our constitutional obligations, of carefully examining this Bill and of amending it if necessary. The Government answer, I understand, is two-fold. In the first place the Prime Minister referred to Section 2 of the Constitution Act which was passed in Ireland, which says that if there is any provision of the Constitution repugnant to the Treaty it is null and void. Is that any reason why to-day if we see that there are provisions in the Constitution which are repugnant to the Treaty we should not put them right? We should be guilty of a most gross breach of our duty. I will go farther than that. Supposing that hereafter provisions are found in the Constitution which are repugnant to the Treaty, who is to say whether they are repugnant? Under this Bill there is no tribunal that can say whether or not the provisions of the Constitution are repugnant to the Treaty. You will not be able to come to this Parliament, because this Parliament will have passed the Constitution. Therefore, once you pass things which are repugnant to the Treaty there will be no way of setting them right. There is, no doubt, a provision that the Parliament of Ireland may, if it likes, put right those things which have gone wrong. How are we to enforce it? Will this Government be able to go to the Irish Parliament, and say, "Here is a provision of the Constitution you have made which is repugnant to the Treaty, which you ought to set right Set it right" If I know anything of my fellow countrymen in Ireland I do not think they will do much, even if they have got power of revision of that sort. I say, therefore, that this is the time to secure this revision.
A further question was raised by the Prime Minister. He says if you amend thi6 Constitution it will have to go back to Ireland in order that the amendment may receive the sanction of the Irish Parliament. That is quite true. It is also true that it will be very difficult, if not impossible, to do that by the 6th December. It is also true that if the Constitution is not passed by the 6th December, the existing Provisional Government in Ireland comes to an end. Let me suggest to the learned Attorney-General and to the Prime Minister that there is a quite simple method of ex-
tending the time. They could bring a Bill into this House, which could be passed in a couple of days, extending for one or two months, as the case might require, the powers of the existing Provisional Government in Ireland. That would give us those extra one or two months for examining these matters and putting them in order. If that suggestion were put before the Irish Government I think they would be grateful for it. At any rate, I strongly urge the Government, in order to give us the opportunity of carrying out our duty of examining and amending this Bill, to bring in such a Measure. No one could reasonably object to it. Then, when we have amended the Constitution, we shall be able to set up the Irish Parliament on what I trust may be. a fair basis. I end by saying, as I began, that I trust the inauguration of that Parliament may be the inauguration of a new era for Ireland.

The ATTORNEY-GENERAL (Sir Douglas Hogg): During the three days that I have had the honour of sitting in this House, I have heard more than one hon. Member appeal to the indulgence of the House. I hope I shall not be trespassing unduly if I begin by saying that I am conscious that no Member has more need to appeal for that indulgence than I myself. I should like to assure the House that if I do make mistakes, it will be due to inexperience and to no intentional disregard of the rules of the House or the traditions which inspire them. I have listened, I hope intelligently, and certainly attentively, to the criticisms which have been put forward against the Constitution which this Bill seeks to enact. I have followed the Articles which are particularly impugned. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) began by telling us that he did not propose to move the rejection of this Bill or to vote against it. He quite correctly proceeded to point out certain respects in which Articles of the Treaty did not seem to him to conform with Articles of the Constitution. I am going, I hope, to deal with those difficulties. After going through the Constitution, the hon. and gallant Member went on to point out that in his view it was very doubtful with whom we were making this Treaty. He questioned whether the Constitution were a final settlement, and
pointed out instances of disorder in Ireland. He told us, as I fear may be true, that there are many people in Ireland who desire to see this Treaty annulled.
I hope my hon. and gallant Friend will forgive me if I do not follow him in that part of his speech, because it seems to me that those arguments were better directed to the question of the rejection of the Bill rather than to the matter which he himself said was the relevant matter, namely, whether the Constitution and the Treaty were in accord. I would only say this, that if it be true, as I fear it is true, that there are disorders in Ireland; if it be true, as I think it may be true, that many people in Ireland wish to see this Treaty annulled, there could be no better way of fomenting disorder and of playing into the hands of those who wish to see the Treaty annulled than to fail to pass this Bill. You would thereby leave us in the position that, by Article 17 of the Treaty, the Provisional Government would cease to have any power in Ireland on the 6th December; we should have nothing erected in the way of organised government to take its place, and those who opposed the Treaty in Ireland would be able to say that the British Government had once again played false with them.
I turn to the detailed criticisms which have been brought forward this evening. The first Article which was attacked was Article I of the Constitution—the Article which provides that
The Irish Free State is a co-equal member of the community of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations.
It was said that whereas in the Treaty the expression was "the British Empire," in this Article the expression is "the British Commonwealth of Nations," and that that was a new phrase, which meant something different. I think I can alleviate the anxiety of my hon. Friends if I point out that the expression is taken from the Oath of Allegiance, which is to be found in the Treaty itself, because if we look at the Treaty it is expressly provided that the Oath of Allegiance to be taken by every Member of the Irish Houses of Parliament is to be in a stipulated form, which ends by reciting the adherence of Ireland to, and her membership of, "the group of nations forming the British Commonwealth of Nations"—exactly the same phrase as we have in Article 1. I do not think, there-
fore, we need be alarmed by the prospect that Article 1 is different from the Treaty. The next Article attacked is Article 2, in which it is declared that
All powers of government and all authority, legislative, executive, and judicial in Ireland, are derived from the people of Ireland.
It was pointed out that the phraseology there is different in some degree from the phraseology in some of the older Constitutions which have been given to the various self-governing Dominions. I am inclined to think that that in itself could fairly be used as an instance of the difference of phrase, which grows up with the difference of conception as to what constitutes the British Empire and the relations! of the Dominions to this country, but I think my hon. Friends need not be afraid of the meaning or the effect of the Article when they remember that Article t is only one Article, which has, of course, as the hon. and learned Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) will realise as a lawyer, to be read in conjunction with the other Articles of the Constitution. We find that under Article 12, the legislative authority is vested in the Government and two Houses; that in Article 41 it is provided that the representative, of the Crown may withhold the King's Assent, or reserve any Bill for the signification of the King's pleas-ire, provided that he shall act in accordance with the constitutional usage governing the like withholding of assent or reservation in Canada; and that Article 51 provides that "the Executive Authority of the Irish Free State is hereby declared to be vested in the King." With those stipulations embodied in the Constitution I do not think my hon. Friends need be under any apprehension that the Constitution can be used legally to set up a Republic.
I pass to Article 3, which has been the subject of considerable attention. It has been stated that Article 3 creates a status unknown hitherto to the British Constitution or to the Constitution of any State within the King's Dominions. In fact, Article 3 has no such far-reaching effect as my hon. Friends seem to fear. There can be no doubt at all, that whether you go to Australia or to Canada for your parallel, you will find in either of those self-governing Dominions that British subjects sometimes are, and sometimes are not, granted the right of the franchise, and granted what may loosely,
perhaps, be called the status and privilege of citizenship. The right hon. and learned Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) referred to the case in which it was held only two years ago, in the British Court of Appeal, that a German who had been naturalised in Australia, and therefore in Australia was a British subject, when he came to England was an alien enemy. The hon. and learned Member for York said that the phrase "Irish citizen" was a phrase unknown to the British law, and that we should not find in Canada or any other self-governing Dominion any such phrase. I have had the industry to look up the Canadian Statutes, and I find that my hon. and learned Friend is mistaken in that view, because if he will look to the Immigration Law of Canada, which was passed as long ago as 1910, he will find the phrase "Canadian citizen" used in that Act. It is defined in that Act, and there are a variety of provisions which give certain privileges to Canadian citizens which are not accorded to other British subjects. It seems to me, therefore, impossible to say that there is anything alarming in finding in the Irish Free State a phrase used to define people who have certain privileges in the Irish Free State, which has been used at least for 12 years past in Canada, the place which is, admittedly, taken as the model of the Irish Free State Constitution.
The next matter which was criticised was Article 5. The hon. and gallant Member for Burton (Colonel Gretton) pointed out that the stipulation as to titles of honour which is contained in Article 5, namely, that they cannot be conferred on a citizen of the Irish Free State except with the approval, or upon the advice of the Executive Council of the State, was not to be found in any Constitution. I believe he was quite right in saying it was not to be found in any Constitution, but he is mistaken if he thinks that it embodies any new constitutional theory. As long ago as 1918, this very point was raised by the Dominion of Canada, and the responsible Ministers of the Crown at that time gave to the responsible Ministers of Canada an assurance in the very terms of Article 5 of this Constitution. I pass to the next Article attacked, which I am glad to say is as far on as Article 49. That is the Article which provides that
Save in the case of actual invasion, the Irish Free State shall not be committed to
active participation in any war without the assent of the Irish Parliament.
My hon. Friends called attention to the provision of the Treaty which provides that
The Government of the Irish Free State shall afford to His Majesty's Imperial Forces in time of war, or of strained relations with a foreign Power, such harbour and other facilities as the British Government may require for the purposes of coastal defence.
There is really no inconsistency between the two Articles. The stress, of course, in Article 49, is on the word "active" participation. It does not say, and does not mean, that the Irish Free State is not to give the harbour facilities which they have undertaken to give. What it does mean to say, and what it does in fact say, in my opinion as a lawyer, is that the Irish Free State shall not be committed to active participation, that is to say, to become actively engaged by raising and joining fighting forces in any war, without its assent. If there were any doubt about it, we should find at once the value of Clause 2 of the Act which the Irish Free State passed, and which was referred to by my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury)—the Article which provides that
The said Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland set forth in the Second Schedule which are hereby given the force of law.
I am sure the hon. and learned Member for York would be the last to suggest that any lawyer who had that Clause before him, and had to glance through Article 49, in the light of Clause 7 of the Treaty, would have any doubt at all as to the effect of the words "active participation."
I pass now to what is perhaps one of the most serious matters which have engaged the attention of those who have criticised the Bill—I mean Article 66 with regard to the Privy Council. I think the right of appeal to the Privy Council is a matter to which probably the great majority of our Members on this side of the House would attach the greatest importance, and I do not think that if there were any doubt about it, it ought to be left in doubt: but in my judgment there is none. The legal position, as I understand it, is this. Every self-governing Dominion necessarily has,
unless it has been taken away, as part of its constitutional relationship to the Crown, the right of the Crown to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council in any case in which the Crown thinks fit so to do. That has been laid down as being the undoubted prerogative of the Crown in the Privy Council itself, two or three times at least. That is, I think, a matter beyond all possible doubt. It is perfectly true that at this moment—at any rate, down to the enactment of the Treaty —there was no right of appeal from Ireland to the Privy Council, because the Crown exercised its right of appellate jurisdiction through the House of Lords. But this Treaty, by its express terms, put the Irish Free State into the position of a self-governing Dominion, and expressly provides that
the position of the Irish Free State in relation to the Imperial Parliament and Government and otherwise shall be that of the Dominion of Canada, and the law, practice and constitutional usage governing the relationship of the Crown to the Dominion of Canada shall govern their relationship to the Irish Free State.
The moment you enact that, it necessarily follows you are putting Ireland into the position in which the appeal which formerly lay to the House of Lords, now lies to the Privy Council. and the relationship of the Crown to the Dominion of Canada, undoubtedly is—I am speaking here in the presence of lawyers on both sides of the House, and I know they will all agree with me—that the Crown has a right, at least when it chooses in any given case, to give leave to appeal to the Privy Council. That right is exercised through the Judicial Committee of the Privy Council under the statutes which create that Judicial Committee, and the moment you enact this Constitution and this Treaty you necessarily give to Ireland and to an Irish citizen the right of applying to the Privy Council for that right to appeal which every Canadian citizen has at this moment. If Article 66 were not in, I am inclined to think that there would still be a right of appeal to the Privy Council, because it has been held more than once in the Privy Council that you cannot take away that prerogative of the Crown except by express words. But in order to prevent any doubt upon the matter, you have, in Article 66, the express provision:
Provided that nothing in this Constitution shall impair the right of any person
to petition His Majesty for special leave to appeal from the Supreme Court to His Majesty in Council, or the right of His Majesty to grant such leave.
Having that proviso there, there can be no possible doubt at all that the prerogative right of the Crown which exists in the case of Canada and other self-governing Dominions is preserved in the case of Ireland. I think, therefore, that the apprehension of my hon. and learned Friend, quite rightly brought forward for consideration, really turns out not to have any foundation.
I think that exhausts the particular Articles of the Constitution which were attacked. But my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London (Sir F. Banbury) propounded one or two other conundrums. [Laughter.] I gather, although my Parliamentary experience is very scanty, that that is nothing new. The questions which he has put to me were these: He said, first of all, that there was in this second Clause of the Irish Bill the, provision that the Articles of Agreement were given the force of law, and that the Constitution, in so far as it had reference to the Articles of Treaty, would be null and void, and, said he, what is the object of having that in at all if the Constitution is all right? The answer is that even lawyers sometimes make mistakes, and in order to prevent any possibility of a mistake arising in this case, there has been expressly inserted this stipulation which of itself involves that, if such a mistake should ever be discovered, then it is the Treaty which prevails and not the Constitution, and that the Constitution, to the extent to which it is in conflict with the Treaty, becomes null and void and inoperative. My right hon. Friend went on to say, who was going to decide whether the Constitution is in conflict with the Treaty or not, and if I may say so, I entirely agree that that is a very important point which ought to be cleared up. It is cleared up! Article 65 of the Constitution provides:
The judicial power of the High Court—
That is the Irish High Court, not Parliament, as my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York (Sir J. Butcher) thought—
shall extend to the question of the
validity of any law having regard to the provisions of the Constitution…
Then, Article 66 provides:
The Supreme Court of the Irish Free State"—
that is the appellate Court—
shall with such exceptions (not including eases which involve questions as to the validity of any law) and subject to such Regulations…have appellate jurisdiction from all decisions of the High Court.
So that we. got an express provision there that any question as to the constitutionality of any law must go to the High Court, and then we get, under Article 66, the proviso to which T have already called attention, under which the prerogative right of the Crown to grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council is preserved. Therefore, in any case of doubt the Privy Council has the right to say that the question should come to it for decision and its decision will be final.

Sir J. BUTCHER: Docs this Clause only relate to the question of the validity of the law made by the Irish Parliament, not to the validity of the Clause in the Constitution?

Sir D. HOGG: I do not think that that question is well founded, because my hon. and learned Friend sees the laws are enacted by Parliament subject to and by virtue of the Constitution. If any particular enactment of the Irish Parliament were challenged or the validity of anything which it did was sought to be impugned, the question then would necessarily go viæ the High Court to the Supreme Court and then from the Supreme Court to the Privy Council.

Sir F. BANBURY: May I put an important question? Would the right hon. and learned Gentleman say what is the meaning of these words in Article 66:
The decision of the Supreme Court shall in all cases he final and conclusive, and shall not be reviewed or capable of being reviewed by any other Court, tribunal or authority whatsoever.

Sir D. HOGG: "Provided that nothing shall impair the right of the Privy Council to grant leave to appeal." These words, which follow those quoted by my right hon. Friend, mean, or the effect of them is, that the Supreme Court of the Irish Free State is placed
in the same position as the Supreme Court of Australia, and the Supreme Court of South Africa, and, I think, probably, the Supreme Court of Canada. That is to say, that the decisions of these Courts are final and conclusive, unless His Majesty is pleased to exercise his prerogative right and grant leave to appeal to the Privy Council, in which case the Privy Council may review the decision.

Sir F. BANBURY: I am much obliged.

Sir D. HOGG: These, I think, are the main criticisms which were brought to my notice, except this: That my right hon. Friend the Member for the City of London called attention to the fact that Clause 8 of the Treaty was not in the Constitution. He said, or suggested, Why not put it in? The answer is, that if you look at the enacting Clause of the Constitution it is in, because paragraph 2 of the Schedule (page 4) begins by saying:
2. The said Constitution shall be construed with reference to the Articles of Agreement for a Treaty between Great Britain and Ireland…are hereby given the force of law…
Therefore you are enacting here that the Treaty is law. You need not then proceed to re-enact it by setting it out over again, word by word, in the First Schedule: you have set it out in the Second Schedule. You do not want to print it twice over.

Mr. J. JONES: Economy!

Sir D. HOGG: I think it makes for lucidity. I have dealt, I think, with all the specific criticisms which have been levelled against the Articles in the Constitution. My hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Antrim (Captain Craig), in the course of Debate, asked whether some statement would be made on behalf of the Government with regard to the position of the Southern Unionists. That is a question which, I think, we all recognise as quite a fair question. There is, in fact, going to be a statement made upon that topic by my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary for the Colonies when he introduces the second Bill. He has discussed the matter with responsible Members of the Government as to the exact statement, and has it in his mind. I am quite sure my hon. Friend will leave that matter to him. The matter has not been overlooked, but it does not come
in at this stage. I think I have traversed all the ground necessary in regard to detailed criticism. I would only like to add one or two observations in reply to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for York, who suggested that there really was no urgency in the matter, because we could pass a one-Clause Bill which would extend the time. The difficulty about that is this: that the Treaty is not a unilateral agreement. There are two parties to it. The Treaty is a bargain which this country has made with the Irish Free State. I venture to think it would be a very unfortunate thing if the first Act of this new Parliament, to which almost every Member has been returned pledged, if he can, to secure the observance of the Treaty—if our first act should be to pass something inconsistent with the Treaty in the hope that we should persuade Ireland to agree to it. It is unfortunate that we have not got longer to discuss the matter, but the position is that by the express terms of the Constitution it has to be enacted by 6th December. If we alter the Constitution we then no longer enact the Constitution which has been approved by the Irish Parliament, and we are refusing to do it. although, before it was enacted by them, we had it submitted to the late Government and by them approved. It is perfectly true, of course, that it is our responsibility to pass this Bill. It is, no doubt, true that if we found in the Constitution something which undoubtedly was inconsistent with the wording of the Treaty, it would be our duty to communicate with the Irish Free State and to give effect to it. But I think that the considerations which I have mentioned should at least go so far as this: that this House ought not to refuse to enact this Constitution unless it is absolutely certain that there is in the Constitution something which is really vitally inconsistent with the Treaty. We ought not to be so astute as to try to pick some technical flaw in the exact wording of some particular Clause, and out of that spell some disagreement which would give us what they would regard as a dishonest excuse for getting out of our obligations.
I thank the House for having listened to me patiently. I would only like to add in conclusion this: We have had from some hon. Members expressions of doubt as to the future of the Irish Free State. I have
no mandate from His Majesty's Government to express any view one way or the other. I am quite sure, however, that I am voicing the hope not only of the Government but of all hon. Members of good will on both sides of the House when I associate myself most earnestly and most sincerely with the very eloquent speech of the leader of the Opposition, and when I say that every Member of this House will regard this Bill as a Measure of good will to the people of Ireland, as an indication that Great Britain does intend to implement her obligations to the full, and that oven those who are opposed to the Treaty recognise it and desire to adopt it, and by enacting it to carry it out. His Majesty's Government and the people of Great Britain as a whole will loyally and faithfully observe its terms, with a full hope and prayer that it may turn out for the blessing of the people of Ireland and the cultivation of friendship and amity between that kingdom and ourselves.

Sir HERBERT NIELD: We know the right hon. and learned Gentleman who has just spoken is one who has attained a prominent position at the Bar. I think I may prophesy for him an equally prominent position in this House if one makes his opening speech the illustration. I should like to congratulate him upon the Parliamentary manner that he has already acquired. He has indeed gripped the House as very few other speakers have done, and ho may, I think, congratulate himself upon possessing not only a very clear but a very persuasive voice. With all those accomplishments, I am perfectly sure that he will not be the cause of the downfall of the Government—if it ever does come down. Unlike Balaam of old who went to curse but who remained to bless, I am prepared to approach this Bill with the broadest views of which I am capable. I have been in this House for nearly 17 years, and I have been through a great deal of this controversy. I have seen a good deal of its origin; but the less we say about that the better. I was, of course, deeply disappointed at the proceedings which led up to the Act of last year. I do not desire to open up the volume of the Session of 1921, because it has gone. Strongly as I feel about it, I am prepared to let byegones be byegones, if only this Measure can be made a successful effort for the purpose of restoring peace to Ireland. I was prepared to
criticise this Measure very much upon the lines adopted by the hon. Member for York (Sir J. Butcher), but I am satisfied with the answer which has just been given by the Attorney-General. I was inclined to believe that the previous Committee which considered this Measure came to a conclusion too readily, and the decision was arrived at by those in whom I had very little confidence. I do not believe, however, that, the present holders of office would swerve from their duty if they had any reasonable doubt as to the Constitution which we are asked to affirm not being within the four corners of the Treaty.
It is deplorable that circumstances have made it necessary for the present Government to be the one to have to shoulder-responsibility for this Measure. I trust, however, that it may prove to be a solution of the difficulties which have so long prevailed, and which would never have arisen if politicians in 1906 had not converted a peaceful Ireland into its present state of chaos and anarchy. The authors of this legislation now sit on the opposite side of the House in a decimated condition, and on them rests the responsibility, and posterity will judge them by the result. We all hope that the ultimate results of affirming this Constitution will be satisfactory, and that it may be used moderately, wisely and well by those on the other side of St. George's Channel. I hope we shall not take advantage of any technicality and resist this or that when proposed to us by the Government, of Ireland. I hope we shall honestly and sincerely try to make this a working agreement, and that it will heal finally that sore which has existed for many years in Ireland.

Mr. J. JONES: May I, as a common Member of this House, be allowed to congratulate the Attorney-General upon his speech? I happen to be an Irishman myself, and I want to congratulate the Attorney-General. If all the speeches he delivers here have the same breath of sympathy and understanding and good relationship as the one which he has just delivered, then on this side of the House we shall be pleased to listen to him every time he addresses us. Ireland at the present moment happens to be in a position of which none of us who happen to be Irishmen are proud. We believe that this Bill gives Ireland a full opportunity, and it gives the people of Ireland
power to express themselves in a proper constitutional way. My own belief is that it will be the beginning of a better relationship between the people of Ireland and the people of this country. We trust that under this Measure the people of the North and South of Ireland will join together to achieve a solution of their common problems. There has been an election in Ireland, and the people have accepted the Treaty, and the delay in the carrying out of the Agreement between Great Britain and Ireland in a proper constitutional form has given those who are anxious to destroy good relations between the two countries the opportunity which they sought.
I am no apologist for the principles and opinions I hold. I do hold them and I have a right to hold them. If the people of Ireland decided in favour of a republic by their votes, I should back them because I have no love for any Government which is not founded upon the people's will. The people of Ireland decided to accept the Treaty and it has been accepted by at least 80 per cent, of the electors, and they have agreed to accept this basis of friendship between Ireland and the people of this country. No Irishman, whether he comes from the North or the South can claim to be a loyal son of Ireland if he now tries to pick holes in that agreement. I suggest, after hearing some of the things which have been said in this Debate, that the people of India would be delighted if they had an opportunity of having a similar Constitution to the one we are now considering. I think it ill becomes those who claim to believe in the principle of democracy to get up here after a General Election, in which they never expressed the opinions they are expressing now, and try to prevent the realisation of the ambitions of the overwhelming majority of the people of Ireland.
I am here as an Irishman. I am also here as a member of the Labour movement to say that this is the best settlement that has ever been offered to Ireland. The hon. Gentleman who has just addressed the House has expressed regret that the legislation proposed in previous Parliaments has not been carried into effect. Who was responsible for that legislation not being carried into effect? Why, the very people who
are now wearing sackcloth and ashes, the very men w-ho ought now to be apologising for their past, misconduct, are finding fault with this measure of self-government. As a poor student of history, and not one who is well educated, I say that reforms delayed mean revolution begun. What has happened in Ireland is mainly due to the narrow-minded policy of those who are now saying, "For God's sake, save us from the wolves." If in 1886 this House had given more attention to the statesmanlike proposals then made in a small way, which were put forward as an olive branch, I believe that we should have gradually-reached a better relationship, and we should not have had now all these differences between one part of Ireland and the other. I hope this Measure will enable the two Parliaments to work amicably together, and if it tends in that direction we shall welcome it. I hope the consequences of passing this Measure will be the breaking down of all barriers and the making of greater opportunities for a country which we all love.

Colonel NEWMAN: I am proud to have the opportunity on this occasion of following another Irishman. I have listened to this debate with great attention, and I hope that eventually the passing of this Treaty may lead to what has been rightly called the clasping of hands between two people long estranged. At the present moment that is not so. Hon. Members know that on 6th December, when this Constitution becomes law, there will be no joy bells ringing East, West, North or South in Ireland. Hon. Members know-that there will be no great expressions of joy in this country at all. There are, however, 615 men and women in Great Britain who ought to be really pleased at this Treaty becoming finally an Act, and they are the Members of this House, because we get room for an extra hundred in this. House The Nationalist Members have gone, and hon. Members opposite have more room to spread themselves. I know what it means to have to sit on the crowded benches opposite.
We do not want to accentuate now our differences in regard to the Articles of Agreement and the Constitution. There are differences, but it appears to me that we have had Ministers who have tried to accentuate those differences. Those, however, are small points, and what really
matters to the Loyalists in the South of Ireland is that we have to find out what our status is going to be. We have been betrayed and abandoned in the past, and now we have to find out as best we can exactly what our position is going to be. I congratulate the Attorney-General on his brilliant speech, but I think he skated over in a few sentences the thing that really matters, that is, British citizenship. Until you run the danger of losing a really good thing you do not appreciate it. I appreciate my British citizenship as the finest thing in the world, because it gives mo a direct appeal to my Sovereign and I am afraid that under this Constitution I am going to lose that.

Mr. J. JONES: How?

Colonel NEWMAN: Because on the 6th December I have to make a choice. Article 3 of the Free State Constitution says:
Every person, without distinction of sex, domiciled in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State at the time of the coming into operation of this Constitution who was born in Ireland or either of whose parents was born in Ireland or who has been ordinarily resident in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State for not less than seven years, is a citizen of the Irish Free State.
If I take lip those obligations I want to know if I lose my British citizenship or do I not?

Sir D. HOGG: The answer is, "No, you do not."

Colonel NEWMAN: Then if I take up my citizenship in the Irish Free State, I lose nothing?

Sir D. HOGG: That is so.

Colonel NEWMAN: Then what about my fellow citizens in the Irish Free State? Article 3 says that anybody ordinarily-resident in the area of the jurisdiction of the Irish Free State for seven years acquires citizenship. Apparently they equally become British citizens. It seems to me that seven years next March the Irish people may be celebrating the insurrection in Dublin and all sorts of evil characters may flock back into Ireland, and they will have been in that country for seven years. Therefore, as soon as we make this Bill into an Act, all those doubtful characters, ipso facto, and automatically become citizens of the Irish
Free State. Do I understand they will not become British citizens? Do I understand that I can become a citizen of the Irish Free State and not lose my citizenship over here in this country?

Sir D. HOGG: Yes.

8.0 p.m.

Colonel NEWMAN: I am glad to have that expression of opinion, and I have waited all the afternoon in order to get it. Otherwise see what it means. I shall have to make my choice under Article 3 whether I am to become a citizen of the Irish Free State or Whether I shall become an ontlander in my own country. As an outlander I may be subjected to various penalties with regard to land tenure and military service. I am extremely glad to hear that if I take up my citizenship in the Irish Free State I shall lose nothing; that I shall remain a full British subject, and at the same time be a fully fledged subject of the Irish Free State.

Sir D. HOGG: Citizen, not subject.

Colonel NEWMAN: I do not want to quarrel about words, I will accept the term "citizen." If I become a citizen of the Irish Free State I shall remain a full British subject. If that is so it applies to every loyalist in the South of Ireland. I am very glad to get that statement from the Attorney-General.

Mr. CHARLES ROBERTS: Is it clear that the Irish Free State under this Constitution gets the same right of separate representation in the Assembly of the League of Nations as the self-governing Dominions?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Lieut.-Colonel Sir WILLIAM ALLEN: A great deal has been said this afternoon with regard to the malicious injury done to property in Ireland and to the awful condition of those people who are unable to recover the compensation they are entitled to. I want to get some information on this subject in order that we may induce a speeding up of the settlement of these claims.

Mr. DEPUTY-SPEAKER (Mr. James Hope): I do not say that that is necessarily out of order on this Bill, but it would come in much more appositely on the next Bill.

Sir W. ALLEN: I will postpone what I have to say on that point until we come to the next Bill. I want to draw special attention to the provision under which existing officers of the Provisional Government who at the date of the coming into operation of the Constitution are engaged in the administration of public services, which on that date become public services of the Irish Free State, are to become officers of the Irish Free State. A great many of these officers in Southern Ireland are piteously appealing for relief from that provision for compulsory transfer. By this Article these officers are to remain permanently under the Free State Government; they will have to stay there compulsorily. It will involve great hardship to many of them, and I invite the Government to seriously consider their case. I am told there is quite a number of vacancies to be compulsorily filled up by the Government of Southern Ireland and that at least seven more officers of the Civil Service are required to fill these vacancies. The officers are protesting, and I would beg of the Government to consider their case and to realise what their position will be when they are compulsorily transferred, against their wishes, to the Irish Free State. I am sorry that I and my hon. Friends on these benches cannot give an immediate response to the appeal which has been made to us. I wish that we in Northern Ireland could extend the hand of friendship to Southern Ireland, but up to the present they have given us no reason for doing so. When they seriously take up the question of working this Act, when they become rational, when they cease their brutality and bestialities, when they get going in a sane manner, then will be the time for us to come together. We all want peace, and the sooner we can get it in Ireland the better. We want to be enabled to attend to our business and to get on with our work.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for Tomorrow.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Order for Second Reading read.

The UNDER-SECRETARY of STATE for the COLONIES (Mr. Ormsby-Gore): I beg to move, "That the Bill be now read a Second time"
I am rather doubtful whether in five minutes I can explain the provisions of this consequential Bill, more particularly bearing in mind the phrase that fell from the right hon. Member for Spen Valley (Sir J. Simon) this afternoon, in which he said there was nothing so technical as a layman trying to talk law. This is an omnibus consequential Bill mainly composed of Clauses which have no connection, so my task is not an easy one. I envy the skill shown this afternoon by my learned Friend the Attorney-General in his maiden speech which so struck the House, and on which I venture to congratulate him. The first Clause of this Bill deals with the continued application of the 1920 Act to Northern Ireland. In the event of Northern Ireland exercising its option and continuing outside the Free State, it is necessary, if that option be exercised, as it seems likely it will be, to have machinery ready for the legal continuance of the Northern Government. To begin with, it is necessary that there should be a Governor of Northern Ireland to represent the Crown in Northern Ireland. Under the 1920 Act the same Lord-Lieutenant was to act for Southern Ireland and for Northern Ireland. Now under the Treaty there will be a Governor-General of the Free State, and there must be another officer to act on behalf of the Crown in Northern Ireland. Secondly, the various consequential enactments necessary to bring the Act of 1920 into full operation in Ulster are set out in the First Schedule. There is only one on which I propose to say something, because it is important and constitutes a variation of the Treaty. It is paragraph 3, which deals with the constitution of the Council of Ireland. The proposal which appears in this consequential Bill is a variation of the Treaty, but it comes to this House for its consideration as an agreed Clause—agreed between the Provisional Government of the Free State and the representatives of the Government of Northern
Ireland and of the British Government. The three parties, as it were, have agreed to this solution of the problem of the Council of Ireland, namely, that it shall be left without any further intervention from this Parliament to the Parliaments of Northern and Southern Ireland to come to a fresh arrangement, other than was originally proposed, by the passing of identic Acts. A time limit has been put in of five years. It is presumed that something must happen within that five years. If not, of course, fresh legislation will be required here, but it is unthinkable that some arrangement will not be come to by the passing of identic Acts for the North and the South, or that they will not be able to come together and thresh the matter out. The Government are anxious to invite Parliament to leave it free to Ireland to make the best-possible arrangement.
The second Clause of the Bill deals entirely with the provision for Judges. It has been prepared by a Committee which carefully examined it. All the parties concerned have been consulted by the Committee which sat under the late Home Secretary (Mr. Shortt), and the Government have taken over the proposals therein contained. Clause 3 deals with a somewhat different problem. An undertaking was given by the late Government to provide cottages and land for ex-service men. We are in honour bound as a Parliament here to continue to undertake that obligation, and this Clause provides for such continuance. Clauses 4 and 5 are necessarily consequential provisions which will be needed, directly the Free State comes into full force, to prevent duplicate taxation or the like. I am afraid I shall have to continue my exposition of this Bill when the Debate is resumed.

It being a Quarter past Fight of the Clock, and leave having been given to?move the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 10, further Proceeding was postponed, without Question put.

Orders of the Day — NEWSPAPERS (GOVERNMENT INFORMATION).

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move, "That this House do now adjourn."
I rise to make this Motion for reasons which I will very briefly explain. I
may say that the Motion on which leave to move the Adjournment was given had nothing to do with the question of the behaviour of unemployed workmen in London or any other part of the country; it had nothing to do with the Prime Minister's refusal to see the leaders, which I should not be in order in discussing; it had nothing to do even with the expediency of gathering together in London great bodies of unemployed workers from the provinces. What I do want to do is to clear up, now and for the future, the question of the relation between the Government of the day and the Press of this country. Are the public, when they buy a newspaper, of whatever shade of opinion, to be sure that in it are the opinions of the people who edit and publish the newspaper, and that, if there are official communiqués, they shall be marked as official communiqués; or are they never to be sure that there has not been some pressure put on newspaper editors and others, in times of stress and disturbance, and that communiqués have not been put in as news, at the inspiration of the Government and to hide their origin?
I do not particularly wish to embarrass the Government. My right hon. Friend, if he will permit me so to call him, knows that perfectly well. My object, as we are not in power, is to help the Government to do the right thing, and it is in that spirit that I am raising this question. Evil communications, I am afraid, very often corrupt good manners. The right hon. Gentleman was a great ornament of the late Government for a considerable time, and, no doubt, became very well versed in the methods then used to manipulate public opinion through the Press; but I understand that one of the objects of the formation of the new conservative Government is to sweep away all those irregularities, to get back to absolutely constitutional methods of government—the methods of Disraeli, Gladstone, and so on. In fact, so much has this been the case that, after the present Government came into power, so I am informed, Downing Street was closed to Press representatives. The gentlemen who went in the ordinary course of their professional duties to ask for information at Downing Street, as they were legitimately entitled and were accustomed to do, were told that those days were over, and that no Pressman
was to cross the sacred threshold of No. 10 or No. 11, Downing Street, but that this Government was going back to the pre-War practice and was going to be correct in every particular.
That was until after the election. Then, the moment the Government found itself faced with its first trouble, namely, this unrest, and perhaps even menace, due to great masses of our fellow-countrymen being without employment, a hurried message was sent to certain selected organs of the Press. I say "selected." because one newspaper with a large circulation, read as the sole organ of opinion by a great many of our fellow-countrymen, taken in, I believe, in the households of the very highest in the land, read, I am sure, by the majority of the Members of this House, and certainly read by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, was expressly excluded; and the whole of the provincial Press was left out. In spite of the fact that these men who are supposed to be the cause of this terrible trouble had come from the provinces, the great organs of opinion in the North of England, the Midlands, and the West of England, that do not publish in London, were excluded. Certain selected newspapers were asked, by telephone or by other means, to send representatives to Downing Street, and there they were regaled with a fearsome story of what was going to happen in certain eventualities. Into the accuracy of the information given out to the Press, the methods used to collect it, or the system of espionage under which, I suppose, we are still doomed to live, I do not intend to enter. I do not question the actual material that was given out for publication. I shall have a word to say in a moment about certain aspects of it, but the extraordinary thing is that the newspaper representatives were required, or requested, on no account to publish the fact that this information—giving details of men's careers who were supposed to be the leaders of the unemployed, giving details of the revolutionary plans and plots that they had formed for raising the lieges in rebellion against the Crown—all this was to be published with no hint of the fact that it came from the Government.
That, in my opinion, was a highly improper proceeding, and I think the explanation given by the right hon. Gentleman is very curious. He says, in
effect, that he considered that the newspapers' publication of this information, without giving any hint as to its origin, would have more effect on the public mind than if an official communiqué were issued. In other words, the right hon. Gentleman admits that the public believe the newspapers before they believe his own official communiqués. That is the interpretation. The sooner this Government—and I say this in a most friendly way to the right hon. Gentleman—dispel the distrust in the public mind of the official communiqué, the semi-official communiqué, the inspired statement, and all the rest of it, the sooner they will lead the people to believe that the word of Ministers, in writing or spoken, can be trusted, and the better it will be for the country. They are going the wrong way, if I may respectfully say so, by adopting these methods of which I and my hon. Friend who will second this Motion now complain. I wish at this point to make it as absolutely clear as I can that I am not discussing the policy of the leaders of the unemployed. I do not know that I have ever met or spoken to or seen one single person who is at present leading the unemployed workmen. I hold no brief for these gentlemen. One, I understand, is a clergyman of the Church of England, and many of the others are ex-service men, as, of course, are many of the unemployed. I have been in no communication now or, as far as I know, at any other time with any of them, and I am certainly not in any way defending any action that will lead to violence or riot. I wish to make that absolutely clear. I think that, if we have anything to learn from the awful events of the last seven or eight years, it is that force settles nothing, and I hope the Government will not attempt to ride off by saying that I and my hon. Friend, who will second this Motion, are in any way condoning violence or riot, because that would be absolutely contrary to the fact.
Let me pass to the effect that this had. One newspaper that I know of refused to have anything to do with this anonymous communication that was handed to them. They were, I understand, given a typewritten sheet of paper without any mark or Government stamp on it, and they promptly put it in its proper place, namely, the wastepaper basket. Another newspaper did not use
it, but they, very properly as I consider, gave their readers to understand what had happened. I quote from the "Westminster Gazette." Apart from the fact that the "Westminster Gazette" is owned by a very distinguished Nobleman and its policy is well known in the country, I am certain none will accuse it of trying to stir up revolution or anything like it. On 22nd November it warns the public that they must be prepared for a series of Moscow-inspired plots and sensational statements which have a common origin based on the idea that a massed gathering of the unemployed, being refused admission to Downing Street, will disperse and afterwards concentrate by twos and threes in Whitehall, forming into sections of eight men. Then come the following lines:
The 'Westminster Gazette' refuses to accept these anonymous statements and regards it as the duty of the Government to make a plain statement on its own responsibility.
I could not put it better. In an article on 23rd November they say:
Every newspaper will readily give prominence to any Government statement, either of fact or policy, but newspapers ought; not to be asked to give on their own authority news which the Government wishes to disseminate, but for which it will not accept responsibility.
I think that is very fairly put. This method adopted by the right hon. Gentleman puts a very great strain on the newspapers. They are told we are on the brink of a vast conspiracy to raise an insurrection amongst the inhabitants of the country, and that they must help the Government by publishing this information without giving its source. As patriotic men, what are they to do? They do not like to refuse. They feel bound to accept. Further, when newspapers are selected for these confidences, it is a form of pressure which can be brought to bear upon them in the future. Suppose only the papers that publish these inspired statements anonymously are to receive Government information. It puts a very powerful weapon in the hands of the Government of the day against the Press. The late Government, whatever they did, used to invite the sheep and the goats and everyone to their Press Conferences. [An HON. MEMBER: "Did they?"] Yes. [An HON. MEMBER: "No, no!"] If anyone was excluded, that was very improper, but, generally speaking, they invited the whole
of the daily and the provincial Press, and I am told in fact that some conferences at which an hon. Member for one of the Divisions of Birmingham presided were so over-crowded as to be uncomfortably hot. At any rate, the late Government invited them all; but if you are going to begin picking and choosing amongst the papers which give you support, you are bringing a form of pressure on the public Press which is unhealthy and which may lead to very unfortunate results indeed. The freedom of the Press is a very precious thing, and if Governments are going to attempt to manipulate it in this sort of way, it is very wrong. I do not say the right hon. Gentleman would himself at this moment deliberately try to force papers to publish certain things by applying or withholding pressure, but if he once begins selecting whom he is going to invite to Press Conferences, the door is open to that form of abuse that I have attempted to describe, and I am trying to do him a service by putting a stop to it once for all.
On the other hand, certain papers did fall in with the right hon. Gentleman's ideas. I hold in my hand one newspaper, very brilliantly written, the "Pall Mall Gazette," which fell in completely with the Government's plan. They talk of
an organised plan to provoke a riot by dictation of Moscow,
a
full exposure.
and then we have
Orders from Moscow,
and
Men who are led by some of the most revolutionary Communists in the country, men who are in almost daily communication with Moscow.
When these great headlines appeared they were widely read in a very respectable paper of this sort, and I wonder there was not a panic on the Stock Exchange. I wonder that ordinary citizens did not make a raid on the gunshops and purchase weapons for their self-defence. This is not the way to get tranquillity in the public mind. We are told we are going to have peace, rest and a clearer atmosphere. We do not want our nights disturbed by these fearsome nightmares. I do not know anything about these unemployed leaders. I do not think I have met one of the men who are at present organizing the movement amongst our
unemployed workmen. The newspapers have been required to publish accounts of these men's records. Apparently the whole of them have been gone over with a small toothcomb and they have picked out certain gentlemen who had the misfortune to come into collision with the civil authorities, mostly men who have been in prison, or fined, or prosecuted for inciting to disturb the peace, in other words, for making speeches. I should have thought the right hon. Gentleman would be a little more sympathetic. Still, other times, other manners. I do not wish to go into that. Here and there they found the record of a man who had committed some horrible crime involving moral turpitude. In any case, I have it on such legal authority as I have been able to consult that these men would have been justified, and would have had a very strong case, if they had sued the newspapers for libel. Then, where would they have been? Would they have said, "This is the responsibility of the Government," and should we have had the spectacle of the right hon. Gentleman and his private secretary arraigned for criminal libel and the old rule of the King committing no wrong? It is unnecessary to stress this point to show, as I think, the extreme impropriety of such an action as getting newspapers to publish the records of these men who are described as leaders of the unemployed. I am not going into the question of their characters, their position, their political beliefs, or past records. I am saying it is not a very chivalrous thing to pillory poor men throughout the Press of London in this way because they are doing what I believe, from what I know of my fellow-countrymen, most of them consider to be an action to try to help men, women and children who are suffering cruelly. It is not a thing I consider quite worthy of the Government of this country.
We are really faced with a very big constitutional issue. The late Government. I believe, was largely brought down through misusing the Press. The famous communiqué issued by Mr. Winston Churchill served the useful purpose of getting him out of the present House of Commons. It was following on one of the conferences with the Press in Downing Street that quite a number of newspapers in London came out with great
placards, "War Inevitable," and underneath the word "official" underlined. When that sort of news, issued from Downing Street and flashed round the world, reached the people who were facing each other and might possibly have become combatants, it was really a great miracle—it was largely owing to the great good sense of the soldiers on the spot— that we were not involved in a war the outcome and extent of which no one could prophesy. That was an example of the very worst form of an attempt to mould public opinion, to influence public opinion, by what I think altogether improper means. Are we going to have the same policy pursued? Is the right hon. Gentlemen going back to the methods of issuing proper official statements from the responsible heads of Government Departments to the Press which everyone knows are official statements and can be given the weight and credence they deserve? It depends very much on the Government of the day and its past record. Are we going back to that, or is the Government going to permit newspaper correspondents to call upon them for information upon questions of the day, quite properly, and to give them such information as they like, leaving them to say, "We have this from official sources" or "Our diplomatic correspondent learns from the Government Department"? That is the perfectly proper way, and is quite regular, and works well both here and abroad. Are we going to do that, which I suggest the Government should do in the future, or are we going to continue this attempt to improperly influence public opinion by manipulating the Press, or attempting to manipulate it? If so, we are simply continuing an extremely unhealthy, unwholesome atmosphere which grew up out of the War and from D.O.P.A. and all the other expediences that were used at that time, such as propaganda and the whole business of trying to bludgeon public opinion, which we know so well does tremendous harm.
I invite the Prime Minister to tell us plainly what he intends to do in the future. On this occasion, possibly some subordinate may have exceeded his instructions, but I know the right hon. Gentleman too well to think that he would make that as an excuse. He may himself for the moment have temporarily
lost his balance. If so, well, we are charitable; to err is human, and I am sure that we will forgive him. But it is playing with fire. It is not good. It is not fair to the House of Commons. We ought to have these statements on the Floor of the House. It is not fair to the right hon. Gentleman himself, who, I believe, does want to get back to a peaceable and tranquil atmosphere. It is not fair to the Press. It is putting an unfair strain upon them. It is most unfair to pick out this paper or that paper because of its political opinions. It is most unfair to the public. The ordinary man in the street is busy and hard at work, and has not the time to buy two or three newspapers and to weigh up the news and opinions given in each. He wants to know that the news he gets is true, and that no one is trying to mislead him. It is for these reasons that I move the Adjournment.

Mr. LANSBURY: I beg to second the Motion.
I want to join in the protest against carrying on these bad old traditions of the War. It may have been that during the War we must have espionage and a good deal of underhand or underground work in order to carry the war through successfully. My experience during a War at conferences at Downing Street or at Whitehall was that they were deliberately run for the purpose of giving information of a certain kind. I had a great altercation on one occasion with the late right hon. Member for Dundee (Mr. Churchill) about some information he was giving, which I knew was untrue, and which I challenged at the time. It may have been necessary that the Government should in a way give perverted information in order to keep up the spirits of the nation; but there is no such reason now. I should have thought that now the Coalition Government has gone, the Prime Minister would at least-have got rid of this Press Department altogether, and that he would have got rid of the Criminal Investigation Department in regard to political affairs.
I have been in politics almost since I was a child, and I have never known a time when the police have been so active in regard to trade unions and socialist societies as they are now. I have never read at any time such outrageous and ridiculous stories of the aims and objects
of trade unions and socialist societies as now. I lived through the period when William Morris and H. M. Hyndman first started the socialist movement in this country. For a little while they were prosecuted. Hon. Members will remember that the police first began to take notes in connection with meetings of socialist societies plus the Irish Home Hide agitation. There was a Debate in this House 30 years ago and a protest was made against the police being employed to attend political meetings of any kind. I have admitted that during the War it may have been necessary, I am not admitting that it was. I am only saying that from the point of view of hon. Members opposite it may have been necessary; but it is not necessary to-day. It is an insult to the whole of the Labour movement to send police of all kinds to take down our speeches in a very rough-and-ready manner. I was sent to prison for a speech that I never delivered. [Laughter] It is all very well for hon. Members to laugh. I can laugh because it did me no harm. I can go to prison and come out and it will not make any difference to me, but I am not a poor man in the sense that other people are poor, people who have no one to speak for them, and who very often are unable to speak for themselves. Therefore, it is not a matter for laughter when police who cannot write correct shorthand are sent to our meetings to take down notes and to publish them in the Press, prosecute the speakers, and send them to prison.
I undertake to say that not one of the men whom you charge with having gone to prison for seditious statements ever uttered the statements that the police charged them with having made. I am as certain of that as I am that I am standing here. I am not making a charge against the Prime Minister. I have a regard for two men whom I met here in the last Parliament, of which I was a Member, one is Lord Balfour, and the other is the Prime Minister, not because I agree one bit with what either of them do or the principles they profess, but I could understand what they meant when they got up to speak, and I did not always understand what others meant. Therefore there is nothing personal in what I am going to say. Somebody got out a Memorandum, and I expect that that somebody is under the jurisdiction
of the Home Secretary. This Memorandum was given to certain sections of the Press. This afternoon, to the amusement of the House, the right hon. Gentleman admitted that the "Daily Herald" was left out. Of course, it might have been left out during the period when I was the editor, because I am such an awful person that I would not deal fairly with such a statement. It so happens that the "Daily Herald" to-day is the property of the trade union and Labour movement and is edited by one of the most distinguished journalists in the country, and it is an insult to him that the communiqué was not given to him. Whoever was responsible for this document, they must have known that no self-respecting, independent journal would touch it with a forty-foot pole. He did not give it to the Press Association, nor to the Central News, both of which send news throughout the length and breadth of the country, because I am certain that neither of those organisations would have lowered itself to accept a communication on the terms laid down by the Government that they should suppress the source of their information.
Surely we have, not come to this pass, that we are not able to carry on the business of this country without poisoning the sources of information that the Press gives to the public. Here we are a political party. Our numbers give us status. I daresay that some hon. Members opposite think that we are a very poor lot because we are what we are, but here we are in a certain number, and are we going to allow the Government to use the Press to poison the minds of the public against men who, to a very large extent, are men whom we represent? There are 2,000 in this crowd. There are altogether from one and a half to two millions of unemployed. If there is one section of the community whom I at least try to represent, it is those who are down and out. I do not deny that hon. Members opposite perhaps try to represent them from their point of view. I am not so silly as to say that we have got a monopoly of any of the virtues. The only thing I say is that we think that our proposals for dealing with the unemployment are the only proposals that will solve the problem, and, believing that, we fight for them every time and do what we are doing here on every
occasion. But when the day comes when we change over to that side, as it will come, will hon. Members opposite think it right that we should take the Press in hand to dope it in this fashion? There is not one of them who would defend it then.

Commander BELLAIRS: It is the same as they do in Moscow.

Mr. WALLHEAD: What are they doing in Italy?

Mr. LANSBURY: It is all nonsense to talk of what they are doing in Moscow or Italy. We believe in the principle that, if the working people will use this institution to its fullest extent, we can revolutionise our society without shedding one drop of blood, and that is what we are doing all the time. But your police, through the Government Departments, dope the Press with exactly the contrary view. All through elections the story was told mainly because the police are used in order to spy on the workers and get up these cases against them. We want to protest against that. The Prime Minister said some days ago that our leader (Mr. Ramsay MacDonald) was acting as Rip Van Winkle when he recalled what the Prime Minister and the hon. Member for Canterbury (Mr. McNeill) did during the Ulster agitation. I want to say to them that the whole talk of violence in the Labour movement arose mainly after these activities in Ulster.

Mr. SPEAKER: I hope that the hon. Member will not pursue this line, as he is going far from the Motion before the House.

Mr. LANSBURY: I have had six of these men this evening in the House. Ninety per cent, of the men whom you dub "criminals" are men who went through the War. One of those who want to see you has every medal except the Victoria Cross. He has gone through the length and breadth of Europe fighting for his country. The others fought too. If even 10 per cent. of them—which is untrue—could be proved to be real criminals in the ordinary sense of the word you have no right to gibbet them in the Press in the fashion in which you did. I think that you have done one of the cruellest injustices to a set of very poor men who are down and out, and I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will say to-night
that a mistake has been made, and that we are not to condemn 2,000 men in this fashion simply because they have among them some people who probably at some time did what they ought not to have done. Who has not? God forbid that I should pass judgment on anybody except myself. You often talk in this House of sympathy. You often say that we have not a monopoly. Let all of us agree that, whether these men axe good men or bad men, they are suffering through an infernal social condition which ought to have been changed years ago. Above all, do not let the Government of the day libel them and lampoon them in the fashion in which they have done.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have certainly nothing to complain of in the tone of either of the speeches to which we have just listened. As regards the hon. and gallant Gentleman for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) he, I think truly, explained that his aim was to do his best to enable the Government to do right. That has always been the business of every Opposition, and I think that on this particular occasion we must congratulate him on another aim and of having carried it out successfully. The other aim to which I have referred is not only a desire to teach us to do right, but a desire to teach hon. Gentlemen opposite how they could best utilise their strength in order also to teach us to do right. I have no fault to find with that. To come to the charge made against us, really, I have considerable difficulty in finding out exactly what is the crime of which we are accused. The hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull surprised me very much. He paid a compliment to the Government of my right hon. Friend the late Prime Minister which I listened to with extreme pleasure, and which I am not going to contradict. The compliment was that the late Government never selected newspapers, that they gave all their information to every newspaper, that there was no attempt whatever to get particular newspapers to advocate the views of the Government. I daresay that that will be very gratifying to the late Prime Minister, but it is very different from what I have heard from the hon. and gallant Member himself, and from what, if he thinks it worth while, we shell hear from him again if the occasion arises.
The hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury) accused me, in effect, though I do not think that he accused me intentionally, of branding these unemployed people as criminals. I am going to tell the House exactly what I did. I received a letter from this body asking me to receive them. That was at the very beginning of the Election. I thought it utterly useless and I declined. I got a second letter the other day. I took it up, and I had before me the verbatim report of the speeches made by speakers who were presumably selected, because they were leaders of this movement, and I had, in addition, the previous records—there is no mystery about them—not of this body as a whole, but mainly of people who have made these speeches, and on reading these speeches I came to the conclusion not only that I would not receive a deputation, but that there was a real danger of serious rioting. It is easy to be wise after the event. I had in my mind the recollection of a very serious riot caused by the unemployed near Downing Street. I thought it was quite possible that something of the same sort would occur again.

Major Sir GEORGE HAMILTON: Led by the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lansbury).

Mr. LANSBURY: On a point of Order. I have never led any men in a riot of any sort or kind.

HON. MEMBERS: Withdraw! Withdraw!

Mr. SPEAKER: After that display, I am certain that the hon. and gallant Member for Altrincham will withdraw What he said.

Sir G. HAMILTON: Of course I will. I understood that the deputation which went to Downing Street was led by the hon. Member. If I was wrong, I withdraw, and most humbly apologise to him.

The PRIME MINISTER: Whether rightly or wrongly, I thought that there was serious danger of a riot. I must repeat what I said the other day. A riot, had it occurred, would have had no terrors for me. I do not mean personal terrors; I mean as to its effect on the Government. I am sure that everyone sitting on the Opposition benches realises that if such a riot had taken place it would have weakened and not strengthened the position of hon. Members opposite. I, therefore, had no
motive so far as the Government was concerned. Having read these speeches and that letter, I said to one of my secretaries: "Write a letter declining to see them, and at the same time communicate with the Press exactly what I myself now know." Up to then I had myself no knowledge that, as I now believe—I am bound to say this—these poor people were being exploited, not by the Labour party, which believes that its ends can be got, as the last speaker said, through this House, but by a party which is openly aiming at getting those ends by revolutionary means. I have lots of extracts from speeches to justify that statement. Let me give one:
All I have to say is that the unemployed will not he side-tracked, and they will insist in no uncertain manner to see Mr. Bonar Law, and if we do not see him there will he hell.

Mr. PRINGLE: Is it not the case that when a Minister quotes from an official document that document should be laid on the Table?

The PRIME MINISTER: It is the report of a speech taken, not as the hon. Gentleman suggests, by an official shorthand writer, but by men who take shorthand notes on the instructions of the police.

Mr. LANSBURY: Is this an ordinary police report?

The PRIME MINISTER: Yes.

Mr. LANSBURY: There is not one of them to be trusted.

Mr. PRINGLE: Do I understand that the right hon. Gentleman is quoting from an official document? Is it not in accordance with the practice of this House that when an official document is quoted, the whole document should be laid on the Table of the House?

9.0 P.M.

The PRIME MINISTER: I have really no objection to laying on the Table every document I saw, not the least. They were the reports. Let me read another extract which justifies my statement that more than ordinary constitutional means were intended. This was stated at the first meeting:
Now then, you have said 'hear, hear,' many of you, I wonder how many of you will be on parade when I give the word of
command, that we have to make an attack on the House of Commons. We have brought into London over 2,000 unemployed from all over the country who do not give a damn whether they are taken back in coffins so long as we win the fight.
I read the speech made yesterday by a gentleman who, I think, was the main organizer of this movement. He said:
We certainly had sufficient tact and sufficient intelligence to realise, after a careful examination of the position round about Whitehall, that they had sufficient bodies of police, mounted and foot, to give us, possibly, the thrashing of our lives.
What does that show? I do not think there can be any difference of opinion. It shows that they had considered the possibility of a clash, and had come to the conclusion that they would get the worst of it.

Mr. J. JONES: On a point of Order. May I ask the right hon. Gentleman whether he will consider the advisability of receiving a deputation of the unemployed, in order to prevent the very clash to which he refers?

Mr. SPEAKER: That is not a point of Order, and does not arise.

The PRIME MINISTER: I think I have justified the case I have made so far. I must leave the House to judge. The question is, with this knowledge in my possession, did I take a wrong action in giving it to the Press? It is perfectly true that there were two methods in which I could give it. One was to give it to the Press Association, but, as has been pointed out, the effect of that would have been to send it all over the country. It would have been a much more elaborate process, and the only object I had in view was to influence London opinion on the following day, when I feared a riot. I did not, as a matter of fact, give any instructions as to the method of communicating information. I say at once and frankly that I prefer the direct method, wherever it is possible, and it is my intention as far as possible to adopt it. The Mover of the Motion said that we were actually interfering with the liberty of the Press. What happened? Two of my secretaries were engaged in this. They saw between them all the London papers, with the exception of the "Daily Herald," in regard to which I gave an explanation at Question Time. In every case they said to them precisely what were my instructions—"This is in-
formation which we have received, which we are sure the public know nothing about, and which we think it is in the interest of the public for them to know about." How in the world is that interfering with the liberty of the Press—to give them information which they can use or not as they please?

Mr. JONES: Why not publish the records of Cabinet Ministers?

The PRIME MINISTER: I think they are under very close examination. The Seconder of the Motion was good enough to say he had a sort of personal liking for myself. I hope, but it is a very big hope, that he will continue to entertain that, in the new relations in which we are placed. In my view we are being punished—if it is punishment, for I do not feel it very severely—for our virtues. The one charge about "doping the Press" has been that a particular line of thought was circulated in every newspaper that could be got to adopt it, in order to impress the views of the Government on the public. What we did was to send for all the leading London newspapers, and I am told my secretaries said to them definitely, "We do not wish in the least to influence your opinion and do not attempt it, because we know we could not, but these are the facts, and you can judge whether to use them or not." How in the world is that attempting to interfere with the liberty of the Press? The hon. Member who moved the Motion seemed to be under a real misapprehension. I believe he was chiefly influenced in bringing this forward by a motive which every Member of the House of Commons—being a little quicker in the uptake than other people— will appreciate. But if what he suggested were true, it would really mean something that was absolutely impossible. If we did attempt to influence the Press, it would be the Press which supports us. Anyone who has read an account of the life of Delane knows that he was constantly met by the Government of the day in precisely the same way as that in which we are accused of meeting the Press.

Mr. JONES: He was an independent pressman, not a millionaire pressman.

The PRIME MINISTER: He was independent, of course, but he was seen by the Government in order to try to
have a particular thing put to the public. Therefore, I say, in this case we are being punished for our virtues. If we had adopted the plan of going only to the London papers which support the Government, not a word would have been heard. It is because we decided not to do that in our dealings with the Press, as far as we can, that this charge has arisen. It is our endeavour to give information to the whole of the Press, and certainly not to attempt to get our view expressed through the Press by any special dealings. Of course, as we all know, "Facilis descensus," and the time may come when that will not be so, but I assure the House there is no one in my staff at this moment, and I cannot supply the missing skill, who could attempt to deal with the Press by any process except putting the facts straightforwardly before them. I do not think there is any more to say, except perhaps this, and I would try to urge this point upon hon. Gentlemen opposite. The extracts which I have read are in themselves sufficient to show that this is really a direct fight against the constitutional methods by which they are proceeding. [HON. MEMRWS: "No, no!"]

Mr. BROTHERTON: On a point of Order. Does the right hon. Gentleman know that there are members of this organisation in this House?

Mr. SPEAKER: I do not think that arises on either side. It is simply a question of the method of dealing with the Press.

The PRIME MINISTER: I quite agree, Sir. Perhaps I went beyond the bounds of Order, but if so I had some little excuse in the fact that I was answering a previous speech from the other side. I have only to say, in conclusion, that there is really no ground for this attack, and I am satisfied that the House of Commons will take that view.

Mr. J. H. THOMAS: We have listened to a great onslaught, but I submit the right hon. Gentleman has not met the complaint. I do not propose to discuss the wisdom or otherwise of his attitude in not meeting the unemployed. I hold strong views about it, but it does not arise on this Motion. I am not going to discuss the wisdom or otherwise of the quotations which he has read. I hold views on that subject also, but again it
has no bearing whatever upon our complaints as to the Government's action. It is somewhat unwise, however, for the Prime Minister to quote precedents, not alone from the late Government, but from years ago, because it is obvious that he himself must have been very disturbed in his own mind as to public opinion on this "doping" of the Press. The very first speech which the right hon. Gentleman delivered in Glasgow referred to it. He said quite openly, so far as he was concerned, he did not intend to influence the Press. [HON. MEMBEES: "And he did not!"] If hon. Members will not interrupt they will probably be able to follow what I am going to say. The Prime Minister can contradict me if I am wrong. There could be only one conclusion drawn from his reference to this matter, and that is, that he attached great importance to it. He must have felt instinctively that the public as a whole was disturbed or there would be no point in his reference. Then, having thus referred to it, the first charge made against the Government after the opening of Parliament is that the Prime Minister himself has broken the principle which he laid down in his Glasgow speech. It is much more serious than that. This is a continuation of a growing practice, and a very bad practice. The Prime Minister asks what crime he has committed? My answer is that if there is a public danger, if there is the menace that he submits to this House, and if he himself was afraid of the consequences likely to arise from the presence of these people, then, instead of selecting one section of the Press, he should have come down to this House of Commons, where he could have had his statement in the OFFICIAL REPORT.

The PRIME MINISTER indicated dissent.

Mr. THOMAS: The dates are against the Prime Minister. Let me point out what this has developed from, because our complaint arises from the fact that this is a continuation of a practice. During the miners' strike—[HON. MEMBERS: "Lock-out!"]—had I relied upon my memory instead of my notes, I would not have made that blunder—during the miners' lock-out, the President of the Board of Trade called together a number of journalists in the Lobby of this House. Having prejudiced their minds with the
statements against the miners, he did not have the courage to say to them: "Now, the statements we have made we will stand by, and we give you our authority to quote them." He did not do that. Having given the information, having prejudiced the case, he wound up by saying to them: "Upon no consideration must you mention that this information comes from Government quarters." I make that statement quite deliberately, and we can produce the journalists themselves if it is disputed. Examine that for a moment in the light of this case. That means that whatever the merits of the dispute may be, they can never be considered fairly and squarely, because, no matter how unfair statements made under those circumstances may be, they can never be answered because the charge cannot be properly made. That happened in connection with the miners' dispute by the then President of the Board of Trade, the late Chancellor of the Exchequer, now the right hon. Member for the Hillhead Division of Glasgow (Sir R. Home), and the present right hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. McCurdy), in a room set apart in this House, met a number of journalists again on the miners' question and deliberately said to them: "Upon no consideration must you publish the source of your information." I put it to the House that when the Prime Minister says to us, "What is the crime that I have committed?" I answer him by saying that he has adopted a method that is a continuation of a bad method that must of necessity prejudice any case.
That is the first case I make, but I want to go beyond that. The Prime Minister shook his head when I said he could have come to this House. Let me examine his version of what took place. He said: "I receive a communication from the unemployed, I decide that it is not my duty to meet them; a letter is sent, I receive another communication, and whilst I am considering it I see in front of me the records of these men." That is his statement. Really, it cannot be quite so simple as that. How does it come about that the records of these men are before him? There can be only one explanation.

Mr. J. JONES: The C.I.D.!

Mr. THOMAS: The explanation must be that those who were anxious to advise
him not to receive a deputation thought they would influence his mind by putting these records before him. What other grounds would there be for the records being in front of him? None whatever.

The PRIME MINISTER: I can answer that very easily. I had seen, in the paper which the hon. Member mentioned, truncated reports of the speeches, and I asked for as full a report as it was possible to get.

Mr. THOMAS: If that be so, that immediately disposes of the reason given for not meeting them. I understood the reason for not seeing the deputation was because it was a matter that the heads of the Departments could deal with. Now I gather that the real reason was not that at all, but that the records of these individuals were a barrier. That is the only conclusion that one can come to. The point I am developing is this. The Prime Minister asked what other steps he could have taken. I answer him by saying again that on the day when the reports were published this House of Commons was in Session. He says tonight that he was so apprehensive of the consequences, that the situation was so dangerous, that he felt the only course open was to warn the London public. If that means anything, it means this, that the London public would not be influenced or disturbed by the speech of the Prime Minister, but that it would be disturbed by statements in one section of the Press only. I put it to the Prime Minister that when he joins with us in saying that we want constitutional methods, when he joins with us, as we join with him, in saying that this House ought to be the sounding board for every grievance in the country, when we are anxious to make it the sounding board and to say to our people, "Give us a chance to raise it in the Mother of Parliaments," when they get to know that those responsible for the government of the country are adopting other means than the Floor of the House of Commons in dealing with this very case, you drive them to unconstitutional means. I say quite deliberately that this House of Commons was in Session. All these speeches that have been quoted and all the records of these men—if the Prime Minister states, as he has already stated, that they were a danger to the nation, I put it to him that he should have come
to this House of Commons and made the statement where it would have been answered, and the public as a whole could have judged. The Prime Minister read a speech about someone saying they would damn the consequences. This language and these threats are not the prerogative of the unemployed. Supposing, for instance, the Scottish Press—

The PRIME MINISTER: I am sorry to interrupt the right hon. Gentleman, but he makes a long argument to the effect that I should have made a statement in this House. There are many other answers to that argument, but the conclusive one is that this was done either on Tuesday or Wednesday, and the House met on Thursday.

Mr. THOMAS: If my right hon. Friend puts that as an argument, I answer him by saying that the hon. Member for Bow and Bromley (Mr. Lans-bury), the day after these articles appeared, read them from these benches.

The PRIME MINISTER: On Thursday.

Mr. THOMAS: I agree, but what I am pointing out to the Prime Minister is that the difference in the date was a day. The difference was that these statements appeared on the Wednesday in the Press. This House of Commons was meeting the next day, and the Prime Minister, instead of making the statement he did, could have told the Press that he proposed to make a statement to the House of Commons.

The PRIME MINISTER: The House only met for business at 3 o'clock. A riot might easily have occurred long before 3 o'clock.

Mr. THOMAS: I will leave the point as to whether a riot might have occurred. I do not want to be tempted into an argument as to what the Press might have said, because a selected number of the Press might easily have been told some of the incidents that have happened in the House of Commons in the early days when I was a Member. They could have been told of some of the speeches made in the other place about "damning the consequences." [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh, oh!" and "Hear, hear!"]

Mr. SPEAKER: Here, again, we are getting away from the point. This is not a general Debate on an ordinary
Adjournment. It is confined to a specific question of the information given to the Press on this occasion.

Mr. THOMAS: I have experienced all through a difficulty in limiting myself. I conclude by saying that I hope the Prime Minister's statement means, if it means anything, that he believes not only in freedom of speech. For those who make a mistake, even in speech, the law of this country provides a punishment. Let them be dealt with in that way. Freedom of speech is necessary and good; freedom of the Press is equally necessary. For the past six years the people of this country have grown to disbelieve the Press. They have come to the conclusion that the Government have so influenced and manipulated the situation that they do not trust its statements. I hope the Prime Minister will realise that the object of this Debate to-night is to abolish, once and for all, this bad practice, and that, above all, if he is going to make a statement to the Press he will make it to the whole of the Press and not to a particular and selected few.

Mr. ROBERT MURRAY: I have listened with very much interest to the explanation and partial apology presented to the House by the Prime Minister. Neither the explanation nor the partial apology, however, gets over the fact that the Government of this country undertook to colour the information which was to be given to the people with regard to a very serious and important matter. The Prime Minister said that it was easy to be wise after the event, but it would have been easy to be wise before the event in this matter. It was easy to know, when an information was issued to the Press of the country, laying all sorts of charges against the people who were leading the unemployed on this occasion, that there was behind it an instigation to the worst form of rioting which could possibly take place—a form of rioting which we have seen, not once but many times in this country, in which an unorganised small body of individuals struggling for something which they thought a right and proper duty, have been set upon and driven by those who felt they were doing the Government's duty and taking the Government's part, however mistaken they might have been.
Speaking as a working journalist, I want to point out that this is nothing new, and that, when the Prime Minister adopted this plan, he adopted in its entirety a plan which, unfortunately, has poisoned the springs of information in the papers for a considerable time. We are aware of the efforts which have been made, successfully, to manipulate the Press of this country. I stand here to declare that, so far as the great majority of the working journalists of this country are concerned, they know and reprobate the uses which are made of the Press machinery by the ruling classes of this country. The Prime Minister has quoted the information which was sent to such a journalist as Delane as a proof that the Government were only following out what happened then. That was a perfectly legitimate and proper course. Information sent to an individual journalist, leaving him the power to use his own judgment and to make what use he pleases of it, is a totally different thing from sending out information to practically all the newspapers of the country with one exception. The latter course was meant to poison at once all possible sources of information on this matter. That is nothing new. We journalists grew familiar with it during the War. We knew it so far as the miners' strike was concerned. [How MEMBERS: "Oh, oh," and "strike."] Hon. Members on the other side laugh at the miners, but that does not matter. We knew it during the miners' strike, or lock-out, or what you please. We knew it during the time of the great railway strike. I can remember a circular sent out by the Government of that day to all the papers. I can remember how, morning after morning, in paper after paper, we had intimations of what the people were expected to believe, all coming from the same source, but meant to be read by people as though they came from other sources. I can recall one of the worst records, that of a late hon. Member, now under the care of His Majesty, who wrote articles for the purpose of influencing the people in regard to railway matters.
I want to point out that we have now had this system adopted by the present Government. This system was set going by previous Governments, but it evidently has been definitely adopted at the very beginning of their career by the Govern-
ment of the day. The object and purpose of its adoption is, in regard to the unemployed and poor people, precisely what the object and purpose has always been. It is one in which wealth and power is ranged definitely and distinctly against those thrown down by the conditions of life who are making an effort to secure something like a foothold in the society in which we live. My protest is that at the beginning we should find this new Government employing this method, which will inevitably carry them to a further stage than at present.
It has been said by the Prime Minister that in sending out this communication to the Press it was left to the liberty of the Press to use it or not. That is the most Jesuitical argument that could be used. The right hon. Gentleman knows, when he issues such a communication to the Press, that where is no portion of the Press, except that with which he did not seek to [...]amper, that is not amenable to the question of honours and advertisements and communications from official quarters. The Prime Minister knows well, when he sends round to the newspapers such a communication as that, that there is no fear of its not being inserted and used with monstrous headlines to carry out his ideas. If it is wrong that such a communication should be issued to the Press, it is doubly wrong—except that it shows how wrong the original wrong is—that it should be sent out with a deliberate intimation that the source of it is to be concealed. Let the Prime Minister take the responsibility for his opinion, and send out to the Press of the country a statement declaring that the unemployed and those who lead them—although they fought for the country and wear medals— are men not to be trusted and received. Let the right hon. Gentleman say, as an honourable man and a getleman, that that is what the Government declares with regard to them.
These Changes these libellous statements, are, however, to be sent out without any information as to where they come from, and the people, especially of London, are to read the next morning statements which appear to be those of honest journalists seeking the truth, whereas they have been spoon-fed with lies in the sense that these men are made to appear as murderers and people of that sort. There is another point. The
Prime Minister has, with a good deal of what we recognise in Scotland as Scottish humility, assumed the tone of one dreadfully shocked with the language used by many of these people at these meetings. But he must remember that comparatively few in this House, certainly on this side, have had the opportunity of university education, and that comparatively few people have the command of the vocabulary that is sometimes necessary to express a strong feeling. The Prime Minister could declare his opinion, when ho was dealing with a question which is now past history, that we should have hell without saying it in that language, but hell we were to have, and the Prime Minister was as guilty as the unfortunate individual who said the same thing without any gloss. I protest, as I said before, as a working journalist, against the continuance of a system which has debased journalism, and made some of the journals of our country a laughing-stock. It is a revelation of the fact that for the past seven years the country has been spoon-fed on propaganda of one kind or another. I hope that as a result of this Debate the Prime Minister will not repeat this offence, and that it will teach the people of this country how much value is to be put upon such information.

Mr. PRINGLE: I desire to congratulate the hon. Gentleman who has just sat down on the most successful and eloquent maiden speech he has delivered. I am surprised, I confess, that in connection with this Debate the Prime Minister should have taken the trouble to quote old speeches. He himself has made excited speeches in the past, and he might have made allowance for the excitement of probably more excitable men than himself. I remember his talking of Ministers hanging from lamp-posts in Whitehall. That is all I have to say about speeches. He has replied to my hon. Friend with the disarming ingenuity for which he has long been famous, but he does not really answer the two counts. The first is that the Government made this communication to selected newspapers. The second is that the communication was made with an intimation that its official source should not be disclosed. Both of those things are highly improper. I think those who have heard this Debate will agree that there has been no defence of
any kind. The Prime Minister has excused himself for omitting the "Daily Herald"; he has not defended himself. Our argument is this. If you make a selection which excludes the "Daily Herald" to-day, what security have you that this exclusion will not be applied to others? You have no security. I do not join with my hon. Friend in praising the methods of the late Government. I believe the late Government in this matter were the originators of a bad method, from which the Prime Minister, in his first speech, announced that he intended to dissociate himself. It is because now, on the first occasion he has the opportunity of dealing with the Press, that he reverts to the worst and most discredited practices of his predeces-

sors, that this Motion is made to-night. The second count is with regard to the non-disclosure of the official source. I think that is an entirely discreditable method of using the Press, and that we should have an assurance from the Prime Minister that this method will not be continued in future. It is because we have no assurance in regard to this, and in regard to selection in the future, that I hope my hon. Friend will divide the House on this occasion.

The PRIME MINISTER: rose in his place, and claimed lo move, "That the Question be now put."

Question put, "That the Question be now put."

The House divided: Ayes, 287; Noes, 147.

Division No, 4.]
AYES.
[9.45 p.m.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Clarry, Reginald George
Greenwood, William (Stockport)


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Clay, Lieut.-Colonel H. H. Spender
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Clayton, G. C.
Gretton, Colonel John


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Grigg, Sir Edward


Apsley, Lord
Cobb, Sir Cyril
Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W.


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Gwynne, Rupert S.


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Collox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Collie, Sir John
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hall, Rr-Admi Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. I O 'by)


Astor, Viscountess
Conway. Sir W. Martin
Halstead, Major D.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincpham)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
Harrison, F. C.


Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Harvey. Major S. E.


Banks, Mitchell
Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Hawke, John Anthony


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Curzon, Captain Viscount
Henn, Sir Sydney H.


Becker, Harry
Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)
Davidson, J. C. C.(Hemel Hempstead)
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)


Bellairs, Commander Carlyon W.
Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)


Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)
Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
Hewett, Sir J. P.


Berry, Sir George
Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank


Betterton, Henry B.
Dawson, Sir Philip
Hiley, Sir Ernest


Birchall, J. Dearman
Dixon, C. H. (Rutland)
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Doyle, N. Grattan
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)


Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)
Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy


Blundell, F. N.
Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Edmondson, Major A. J.
Hood, Sir Joseph


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Hopkins, John W. W.


Brass, Captain W.
Elveden, viscount
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Erskine, James Malcolm Monteith
Howard. Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.


Brittain, Sir Harry
Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Hudson, Capt. A.


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Hughes, H. Collingwood


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Hume, G. H.


Bruford, H.
Falcon, Captain Michael
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer


Bruton, Sir James
Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Hurd, Percy A.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Fawkes, Major F. H.
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, R.)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Hutchison. Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Flanagan, W. H.
Hutchison. W. (Kelvingrove)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Foreman, Sir Henry
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.


Butcher, Sir John George
Forestler-Walker, L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert


Button, H. S.
Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Jephcott, A. R.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Furness, G. J.
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul


Calne, Gordon Hall
Galbraith, J. F. W.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)


Campion, Lieut-Colonel W. R.
Ganzoni, Sir John
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)


Cassels, J. D.
Garland, C. S.
Joynson-Hicks. Sir William


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Gates, Percy
Kennedy. Captain M. S. Nigel


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Kenyon, Barnet


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
King Capt. Henry Douglas


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Greaves-Lord, Walter
Lamb, J. Q.


Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Paget, T. G,
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Parker, Owen (Kettering)
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Pennefather, De Fonblanque
Sparkes, H. W.


Level, Sir Arthur L.
Penny, Frederick George
Stanley, Lord


Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)
Steel, Major S. Strang


Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Perkins, Colonel E. K
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Hundsw'th)
Perring, William George
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Lordon, John William
Peto, Basil E.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Lorimer, H. D.
Pielou, D. P.
Sueter, Roar-Admiral Murray Fraser


Loyd, Arthur T. (Abingdon)
Pilditch, Sir Philip
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Lumley, L. R.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray
Sutcliffe, T.


Lynn. R. J.
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


M'Connell, Thomas E.
Raine, W.
Terrell Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Rankin, Captain James Stuart
Thomas. Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Rawlinson, John Frederick Peel
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Rawson, Lieut-Com. A. C.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Macpnerson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Reid, D. D. (County Down)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Margesson, H. D. R.
Rentoul, G. S.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Reynolds, W. G. W.
Tubbs, S. W.


Mercer, Colonel H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. p.


Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)
Wallace, Captain E.


Mitchell, Sir w. Lane (Streatham)
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke upon Trent)


Moles, Thomas
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Rothschild. Lionel de
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Molson, Major John Elsdale
Roundell, Colonel R. F.
Wells, S. R.


Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Moore-Brabaton, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Morris, Harold
Russell, William (Bolton)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney
Whitla, Sir William


Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Murchison, C. K.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)
Windsor, Viscount


Nail, Major Joseph
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)
Winterton, Earl


Nesbitt, J. C.
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.
Wise, Frederick


Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.
Wolmer, Viscount


Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Sandon, Lord
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Newson, Sir Percy Wilson
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley
Worsfold, T. Cato


Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J.(Westminster)
Shepperson, E. W.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)
Singleton, J. E.



Nield, Sir Herbert
Skelton, A. N.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)
Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)



NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.


Ammon, Charles George
Groves, T.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)


Attlee, C. R.
Grundy, T. W.
Mathew, C. J.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Guthrie, Thomas Maule
Maxton, James


Barnes, A.
Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Middleton, G.


Batey, Joseph
Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Morel, E. D.


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Harbord, H.
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hardie, C. D.
Mosley, Oswald


Bonwick, A.
Harney, E. A.
Muir, John W.


Bowdler, W. A.
Harris, Percy A.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Hastings, Patrick
Newbold, J. T. W.


Broad, F. A.
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Nicol, Robert


Brotherton, J.
Hayday, Arthur
O'Grady, Captain James


Buchanan, G.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Paling, W.


Buckle, J.
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Phillipps, Vivian


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Harriotts, J.
Ponsonby, Arthur


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Hill, A.
Potts, John S.


Cairns, John
Hillary, A. E.
Pringle, W. M. R.


Chapple. W. A.
Hinds, John
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)


Charleton, H. C.
Hirst, G. H.
Riley, Ben


Clarke, Sir E. C.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Ritson, J.


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, North)
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
Johnston, J. (Stirling)
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Both well)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Collison, Levi
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Rose, Frank H.


Darbishire, C. W.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Saklatvala, s.


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepools)
Salter, Or. A.


Duncan, C.
Kirkwood, D.
Scrymgeour, E.


Dunnico, H.
Lawson, John James
Sexton, James


Edmonds, G.
Leach, W.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Edwards. C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Linfield, F. C.
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Falconer, J.
Lowth, T.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Foot, Isaac
Lunn, William
Short. Alfred (Wednesbury)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
M'Entee, V. L.
Simpson, J. Hope


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
McLaren, Andrew
Sitch, Charles H.




Smith, T. (Pontefract)
Trevelyan, C. P.
Wignall, James


Snell, Harry
Turner, Ben
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Snowden, Philip
Wallhead, Richard C.
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, S.)
Warne, G. H.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Spoor, B. G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Stephen, Campbell
Weir, L. M.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)
Welsh, J. C.
Wright, W.


Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)
Westwood, J.
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)
Wheatley, J.



Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Thorne, w. (West Ham, Plaistow)
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Thornton, M.
Whiteley, W.
Mr. Lansbury.

Question put accordingly, "That this House do now adjourn."

The House divided: Ayes, 152; Noes, 292.

Division No. 5.]
AYES.
[9.55 p.m.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hastings, Patrick
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hay, Captain J. P. (Cathcart)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Ammon, Charles George
Hayday, Arthur
Rose, Frank H.


Attlee, C. R.
Hemmerde, E. G.
Saklatvala, S.


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Henderson. T. (Glasgow)
Salter, Dr. A


Barnes, A.
Herriotts, J.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Batey, Joseph
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Scrymgeour, E.


Becker, Harry
Hill, A.
Sexton, James


Benn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Hillary, A. E.
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Berkeley, Captain Reginald
Hinds, John
Shaw, Thomas (Preston)


Bonwick, A.
Hirst, G. H.
Shinwell, Emanuel


Bowdler, W. A.
Hodge, Lieut.-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Bowerman, Rt. Hon. Charles W.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Broad, F. A.
Johnston, J. (Stirling)
Simpson, J. Hope


Brotherton, J.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Sitch, Charles H.


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Buchanan, G.
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Snell, Harry


Buckle, J.
Jowitt, W. A. (The Hartlepoots)
Snowden, Philip


Burnle, Major J. (Bootle)
Kirkwood, D.
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Lawson, John James
Spencer, H. H. (Bradford, SO


Buxton, Noel (Norfolk, North)
Leach, W.
Spoor, B. G.


Cairns, John
Linfield, F. C.
Stephen, Campbell


Chapple, W. A.
Lowth, T.
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Charleton, H. C.
Lunn, William
Thomas, Rt. Hon. James H. (Derby)


Clarke, Sir E. C.
MacDonald, J. R. (Aberavon)
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Clynes, Rt. Hon. John R.
M'Entee, V. L.
Thorne, G. R. (Wolverhampton, E.)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
McLaren, Andrew
Thorne, W. (West Ham, Plaistow)


Collins, Pat (Walsall)
Maclean, Neil (Glasgow, Govan)
Thornton, M.


Collison, Levi
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Darblshire, C. W.
Martin, F. (Aberd'n & Kinc'd'ne, E.)
Turner, Ben


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Mathew, C. J.
Wallhead, Richard C.


Duncan, C.
Maxton, James
Warne, G. H.


Dunnico, H.
Middleton, G.
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Edmonds, G.
Morel, E. D.
Weir, L. M.


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Welsh, J. C.


Entwistle, Major C. F.
Mosley, Oswald
Westwood, J.


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Muir, John W.
Wheatley, J.


Falconer, J.
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
White, Charles F. (Derby, Western)


Foot, Isaac
Newbold, J. T. W.
White, H. G. (Birkenhead, E.)


Graham, D. M. (Hamilton)
Nicol, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
O'Grady, Captain James
Wignall, James


Greenwood. A. (Nelson and Colne)
Paling, W.
Williams, David (Swansea, E.)


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Williams. T. (York, Don Valley)


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
Phillipps, Vivian
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Groves, T.
Ponsonby, Arthur
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Grundy, T. W.
Potts, John S.
Wood, Major M. M. (Aberdeen, C.)


Hall, F. (York, W.R., Normanton)
Pringle, W. M. R.
Wright, W.


Hamilton, Sir R. (Orkney & Shetland)
Richardson, R. (Houghtan-le-Spring)
Young, Robert (Lancaster, Newton)


Harbord, H.
Riley, Ben



Hardle, C. D.
Ritson, J.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Harney, E. A.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)
Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy and


Harris, Percy A.
Roberts, Frederick O. (W. Bromwich)
Mr. Lansbury.


NOES.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Astor, Viscountess
Bell, Lieut.-Col. W. C. H. (Devizes)


 Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Bellairs, Commander Carivon W.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Bennett, Sir T. J. (Sevenoaks)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Berry, Sir George


Amery, Rt. Hon. Leopold C. M. S.
Banbury, Rt. Hon. Sir Frederick G.
Betterton, Henry B.


Apsley, Lord
Banks, Mitchell
Birchall, J. Dearman


Archer Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Barnett, Major Richard W.
Bird, Sir W. B. M. (Chichester)


Astbury, Lieut.-Com. Frederick W.
Barrie, Sir Charles Coupar (Banff)
Blundell, F. N.


Astor, J. J. (Kent, Dover)
Becker, Harry
Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Gwynne, Rupert S.
Newson, Sir Percy Wilson


Brass, Captain W.
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Brassey, Sir Leonard
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'I, W.D'by)
Nicholson, William G. (Petersfield)


Brittain, Sir Harry
Halstead, Major D.
Nield, Sir Herbert


Brown, Brig-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hamilton, Sir George c. (Altrincham)
Norton-Griffiths, Lieut.-Col. Sir John


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Bruford, R.
Harrison, F. C
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Brutou, Sir James
Harvey, Major S. E.
Paget, T. G.


Buckingham, Sir H.
Hawke, John Anthony
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hay, Major T. W. (Norfolk, South)
Ponnefather, De Fonblanque


Burn, Col. C. R. (Devon, Torquay)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Penny, Frederick George


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Henn, Sir Sydney H.
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Butcher, Sir John George
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Butt, Sir Alfred
Herbert Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Perring, William George


Button, H. S.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Peto, Basil E.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Pielou, D. P.


Calne, Gordon Hall
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Pilditch, Sir Philip


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hoare, Lieut.-Colonel Sir S. J. G.
Pollock, Rt. Hon. Sir Ernest Murray


Cassels, J. D.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Pretyman, Rt. Hon. Ernest G


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hohler, Gerald Fitzroy
Price, E. G.


Cecil, Rt. Hon. Sir Evelyn (Aston)
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Raine, W.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Rawilnson, John Frederick Peel


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Hopkinson, A. (Lancaster, Mossley)
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Clarry, Reginald George
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Reid, Capt. A. S. C. (Warrington)


Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spener
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Held, D. D. (County Down)


Clayton, G. C.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Rentoul, G. S.


Coates, Lt.-Col. Norman
Hughes, H. Collingwood
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Hume, G. H.
Rhodes, Lieut.-Col. J. P.


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Richardson, Sir Alex. (Gravesend)


Colfox, Major Wm. Phillips
Hurd, Percy A.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chertsey)


Collie, Sir John
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Hutchison, Sir R. (Kirkcaldy)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Conway. Sir w. Martin
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Rothschild, Lionel de


Cotts, Sir William Dingwall Mitchell
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Roundell, Colonel R. F.


Courthope, Lieut.-Col. George L.
Jackson, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. F. S.
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Craik, Rt. Hon. Sir Henry
Jephcott, A. R.
Russell. William (Bolton)


Crook, C. W. (East Ham, North)
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney


Crooke, J. S. (Deritend)
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Dalziel, Sir D. (Lambeth, Brixton)
Joynson-Hicks, Sir William
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth. Putney)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hompstead)
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sanders, Rt. Hon. Sir Robert A.


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Kenyon, Barnet
Sandon, Lord


Davies, Alfred Thomas (Lincoln)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Sassoon, Sir Philip Albert Gustave D.


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Kinloch-Cooke, Sir Clement
Sheffield, Sir Berkeley


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lamb, J. Q.
Shepperson, E. W.


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Singleton, J. E.


Doyle, N. Grattan
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Skelton, A. N.


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lever, Sir Arthur L.
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Edmondson, Major A. J.
Lloyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Elliot, Capt. Walter E. (Lanark)
Lloyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir Philip
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-In-Furn'ss)


Elveden, Viscount
Locker-Lampson, Com. O. (Handsw'th)
Sparkes, H. W.


Erskine, James Maicolm Monteith
Lorden, John William
Stanley, Lord


Erskine, Lord (Woston-super-Mare)
Lorimer, H. D.
Steel, Major S. Strang


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Loyd, Arthur T. (Abingdon)
Stewart, Gershom (Wirral)


Evans, Ernest (Cardigan)
Lumley, L. R.
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M
Lynn, R. J.
Strauss, Edward Anthony


Falcon, Captain Michael
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Falle, Major Sir Bertram Godfray
Macdonald, Sir Murdoch (Inverness)
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Maicolm
Sutcliffe, T.


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Flanagan, W. H.
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Foreman, Sir Henry
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Forestler-Walker, L.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Mercer, Colonel H.
Thorpe, Captain John Henry


Frece, Sir Walter de
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Titchfield, Marquess of


Furness, G. J.
Mitchell, Sir W. Lane (Streatham)
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Galbraith, J. F. W.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Tubbs, S. W.


Ganzoni, Sir John
Moles, Thomas
Vaughan-Morgan, Col. K. P.


Garland, C. S.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Wallace, Captain E.


Gates, Percy
Molson, Major John Elsdale
Ward, Col. J. (Stoke-upon-Trent)


Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
Watson, Capt. J. (Stockton-on-Tees)


Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Morris, Harold
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Morrison, Hugh (Wilts, Salisbury)
Wells, S. R.


Greaves-Lord, Walter
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Greenwood. William (Stockport)
Murchison, C. K.
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Nail, Major Joseph
White. Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


Gretton, Colonel John
Nesbitt, J. C.
Whitla, Sir William


Grigg, Sir Edward
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)
Wilson, Col. M. J. (Richmond)


Guinness, Lieut.-Col. Hon. W. E.
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)
Windsor, Viscount




Winterton, Earl
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)
Yerburgh. R. D. T.


Wise, Frederick
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.



Wolmer, Viscount
Worsfold, T. Cato
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—




Colonel Gibbs and Major Barnston.


Question, "That the Bill be now read a Second time," put, and agreed to.

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) BILL.

Postponed Proceeding resumed on Second Beading.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: At the interruption I was moving the Second Reading of the Irish Free State (Consequential Provisions) Bill, which consists of a collection of details rendered necessary in the event of the Northern Ireland Parliament exercising its option to continue outside the Free State. I had dealt with the first four Clauses. The fifth Clause deals with Income Tax Adjustment. The proposals in this Bill are similar to proposals affecting other Dominions, with the object of preventing a double Income Tax being chargeable as between the Dominions and the British Isles. In future, the same adjustments will be made between England and Ireland as are already made between the British Isles and the Dominions. Clause 6 is also a financial provision, although not immediately operative. It takes power to bring something into force if and when it should be necessary. That is to say the Government take power to proceed by Order in Council, providing such Order in Council goes through the procedure which is usually adopted in this House, namely, of the Order being presented to the House, so that an Address may be moved for the amending or rejection of the Order if the House so wishes, it enables the House of Commons to keep control of any Order made under this Clause. The point is this, the moment the Free State begins to function fully, there may be certain difficulties regarding the stock registers of the Bank of Ireland. It is an important point, and I make this declaration on behalf of the Government, that no Order in Council will be produced by the Government until all the interests concerned have been fully consulted, and that before anything is done under this Clause 6, the interests affected more particularly by these registers will have an opportunity of being fully heard by the Treasury and the Chancellor of the Exchequer, who are
more immediately concerned in the operation of this Clause. Clause 7 is a miscellaneous Clause, the object being to enable Departments such as the Ministry of Health or the Ministry of Labour to make the necessary arrangements to separate Irish and British business. Most of the points that may be raised on this Bill are necessarily Committee points, and the Government will be only too ready to hear anything in Committee that may be said in relation to them.
Hon. Members will undoubtedly ask why it is that this consequential Bill does not contain other provisions. It is my duty, on the Motion for Second Reading, to say a word or two about three of them. The first has reference to compensation for destruction of lives and property. The second has to do with the possibility of an Indemnity Bill, and the third involves the prospects of land purchase. These are all consequential on ideas not in actual legislation on the passing of the Irish Free State Constitution Bill. As regards compensation, the matter has already been taken up with the Free State authorities, and I have to say that they have expressed their intention of proceeding as soon as they get power, under the Constitution Bill, to enact the necessary legislation dealing with compensation. Until that legislation has been enacted over there, it is not possible for the Chancellor of the Exchequer here to say how far we can or cannot implement, with the necessary guarantees or otherwise, the proposals winch they make. If—and this applies to land purchase as well as to compensation—the Irish Ministers bring forward proposals which are fair in the opinion of this Government, then it is the intention of the British Government to assist in supporting the credit of the newly formed Irish Free State in order that the claims may be met.

Colonel NEWMAN: The hon. Gentleman is dealing, of course, with post-Truce cases—not with pre-Truce cases?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: The Irish Ministers have expressed their readiness that the liability for the pre-Truce claims by claimants not recognised as their supporters by either side, for personal injury maliciously inflicted, shall be divided
equally between the Governments. That is the proposal, and that is the line on which they at present propose to proceed. I want, however, to make it quite clear to the House that all this is provisional. Until the Free State begins to function under the Constitution Bill, no binding undertaking can be given. Until we know-exactly what they are prepared to do and what legislation has been passed there, we do not know what we can do here to assist the distressed persons; but it is the intention of the Government to do all that they can in the very difficult circumstances. There are a great many people suffering very severely owing to the losses that have been inflicted in the last two years, and that will receive the most sympathetic consideration, both here and by the Dublin Government. On that, may I say that the Free State Government do propose to pass an Act of Indemnity. A written question was asked at the last sitting of Dail Eireann, to which Mr. Cosgrave gave the following written reply:
Mutual undertakings of amnesty and indemnity in respect of matters arising out of the Anglo-Irish struggle were exchanged between the British and Irish Governments"—
I am reading the words as they appear in the Handbook of Dail Eireann—
at the time of the handing over of control by the British. These undertakings will need to be covered by appropriate legislation on both sides. It is our intention to submit a Bill to the Irish Parliament for this purpose as soon as the Constitution is through, and to request the British Government to cover their undertaking by like legislation so far as may be necessary to give effect to it.
That is an undertaking on the part of the Irish Government to introduce and pass a Bill of Indemnity. The Law Officers here have examined as to whether anything further in that respect is necessary here, and it is not thought at the present moment that such a further Bill is necessary; but, if it proves to be necessary, such a Bill will be introduced.
Then, undoubtedly, one of the things which affects the position of those who have suffered during the recent disturbances in Ireland is the working of the Compensation Commission. A question was put to me this afternoon by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen), but it was not reached, and the answer to it will be seen among the printed answers to-morrow.
The work of that Commission is to be speeded up. A number of assessors have been added, and, as far as we at the Colonial Office are concerned, we shall do everything we can to assist the working of that important Commission. Considerable progress has been made in the last few weeks. I regret to have to inform the House that Lord Shaw has felt it necessary to resign his position as Chairman, but there will be as little delay as possible in finding another Chairman to fill his place. The thanks of the Government and the House are due to him for the work that he has done. Let me assure the House that the work of the Commission, even if it be without a Chairman for a few days, or even a few weeks, will not cease, as there is quite sufficient material before it, and a sufficient number of decisions, for the Commission to get through the work of reorganisation and to continue to exercise its powers. I hope, however, to be able very soon to announce a successor to Lord Shaw and that that Commission will assist in dealing with the matter. I think I had better leave any other remarks to reply to points which may be made by hon. Members interested in these consequential provisions, but I may say that, just as it is in the interests of the Irish Ministers to proceed with this matter of compensation at the earliest possible moment, so they are very anxious, if matters can be arranged, to complete the work of land purchase, which will have an important assistant effect in ameliorating the situation, particularly in the congested districts of Ireland, and enabling the tenants to become the peasant proprietors, as a peasant proprietary is such a characteristic feature of the Irish social system. They hope to summon an early meeting in Dublin and to produce practical proposals, which again may require the separate assistance of this House. I think I have explained the main provisions of the Bill, and I hope the House will give it a Second Reading to-night so that we may pass to consideration of the Committee stage to-morrow.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: I should like, without any reflection upon his predecessor at the Colonial Office, to say how delighted we are to see the hon. Gentleman acting for the Colonial Office, and what a very clear speech he has opened with, when we consider the
extreme complication of the subject with which he is dealing. I think he will understand that even after his speech we shall probably want further information as to the proposals in the Bill and also as to the other proposals he has outlined. I am certain most of us on this side look at the Bill and wonder whether we can yet calculate what our final liability is for the Irish settlement. We want to know where we are financially, and it is over the financial question that the hon. Gentleman has skated very cleverly. We have had from him no estimate as to what Clause 2, for instance, is going to involve the country in Clause 2, as far as I understand, involves this country in pensioning the Irish judges and a considerable number of other Irish officials. It is rather hard that we should have to find pensions for the Irish judges, seeing that the claim of those Irish judges to compensation apparently arises out of the 1920 Act and fell upon us at a time when money was extremely difficult to find, and we have a right to ask that we should know what the grand total of the liability for judges' pensions is likely to be; and I think we must also have a Schedule showing exactly what those pensions will amount to in each case. Under Clause 1 I gather we are to find another permanent official. We attempt to scrap the Minister of Pensions, and he comes back within a fortnight of his post being dispensed with, and we find ourselves up against a new post of £8,000 a year for the Governor of part of Ulster. In every other of our Colonies and our Crown Colonies the expenses of the Governor are found by the Colony, but apparently in the case of Ulster we are to pay the piper. ["HON. MEMBERS: "We pay in Customs and Excise!"] I suppose he will be a very good Governor at £8,000 a year. It is a considerable sum for a Governor of any Colony. In every other Colony the colonials themselves find the income.

Sir W. ALLEN: May I remind the hon. Member that they pay no taxes?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: They pay taxes in their own country.

Sir W. ALLEN: Not to this country.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: Let us know what is the additional charge put upon
the Exchequer of this country by reason of the creation of this post, and the provisions of this Bill generally. With respect to the provision for ex-service men, I do not think there will be much objection taken. The liability there is £2,500,000, of which a sum of nearly £1,000,000 has already been voted. The additional £1,500,000 might more fairly come out of Irish funds, but it is for the men who fought for the country in the War, and we cannot say much about it. The fact is that the liabilities of this country are being increased at a time when money is very difficult to find.

Mr. MOLES: This sum has been voted upon a previous Bill, and it is only proposed now to allocate the residue of the balance which has not been disposed of.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The point is that it is not being paid in Ireland, or by those who are going to get the benefit of these small holdings. It will be found by the taxpayers of this country. I am quite aware that it was voted under another Bill, but that Bill was drafted before the truce, before the settlement of the Irish question. When the Irish question is settled, this country is left, as usual, to pay.

Mr. MOLES: May I point out that this country is receiving from us nearly £8,000,000 over and above the sum necessary to run the country so far as we are concerned?

Colonel WEDGWOOD: That is quite another question. I think we may take it that the division of the revenue coming from Ireland is going quite as much to Ireland as to this country. [HON. MEMBERS: "No!"] These are additional charges put upon this country. It is with the liabilities for the future that I am mostly concerned. The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has sketched to us a series of indefinite liabilities. Apparently, compensation for loss of life and property is to be paid, so far as the post-truce damages are concerned, by the Irish Government, who will raise a loan, as I understand it, under the guarantee of this country. In that case, can we have from the hon. Member an explanation of what he meant when he said that this country would assist the Irish Government in meeting this liability?
So far as land purchase is concerned, are we involving ourselves in a further liability in addition to the great liability that we have in respect of land purchase already? The Irish Land Bonds are guaranteed by this country. Are we to understand that the rest of the land in Ireland is to be purchased on the same terms as the old land was purchased, and that we are in the same way to be liable for the bonds and the interest upon the bonds which may be required in order to pay for the rest of the Irish land which is to be bought? What is our financial position going to be relative to this question of the extension of land purchase in Ireland? May I point out that even the old land purchase scheme, when it was introduced, resulted in the price of land being forced up by the fact that the Government were in the market buying land? Land rose continually in value as the land purchase scheme went on. If we are now to have an extension of the land purchase scheme making it complete throughout Ireland, the inevitable result will be that the landlords will get for their land a price far higher than they would get if there was no such purchase scheme. It is worth considering whether we cannot cut ourselves off from any liability for further purchase schemes in Ireland so far as the British taxpayer is concerned. If the Government, whether of Northern Ireland or Southern Ireland, desire to carry out a land purchase scheme, let them carry it out on their own responsibility, with their own loans, leaving us to carry out schemes, which are equally necessary in this country, with the resources which we have available. For these reasons it is necessary to have a further statement from the hon. Gentleman, though I do not think it necessary to vote against this Bill or to obstruct its passage through the House.

Captain CRAIG: I congratulate the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies on the lucid way in which he has explained the somewhat difficult, miscellaneous Clauses of this Bill, and while I think his explanation on the whole satisfactory, there are certain points which it is our duty to bring before the Government with reference partly to matters contained in the Bill, and partly to matters, not in the Bill, but which are the result of imposing the Treaty on the Act of 1920. The first of these latter
matters is with reference to elections. Ever since the Treaty, Members for Northern Ireland have been in a state of considerable confusion in reference to elections. A few months ago an hon. Friend of mine was elected to this House. Owing to the dilatory methods of the officials in the Government or the Post Office, or for other reasons which are not clear, that hon. Member, when he came to this House after his election, had to wait here for seven or eight days before the necessary papers arrived to enable him to take his seat. During the General Election returns for a number of writs from Ulster, including my own, were burnt when they got to Dublin. It is true that that did not cause us any great inconvenience, because they were able to send duplicates, which, apparently, served as well as the originals, because here we are. But I am informed that in the appointment of the new Governor of Ulster, these matters will be set right by reason of the fact that to him will be entrusted the Great Seal. All I want is that the Government should make a statement or give a pledge to the effect that that view is the correct one, and that in future the difficulties with which we have mot will not occur.
The Under-Secretary for the Colonies explained that part of the Schedule dealing with the Council of Ireland. Hon. Members who were Members of the last Parliament will remember that there was considerable heated discussion on the proposal, contained in the Treaty, in reference to the Council of Ireland, which was set up under the 1920 Act to deal with matters which affected both Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland—railways, fisheries, diseases of animals, and other matters of that kind, and was to be composed of a certain number of members appointed by Northern Ireland and a certain number appointed by Southern Ireland, with a Chairman appointed by the Government of this country. When the Treaty was passed there was an extraordinary Clause, which provided that the Free State, for the purposes of this Council, should take the place of Southern Ireland under the Act of 1920 and should appoint the necessary members to form the Council of Ireland. The anomaly and absurdity of the position is, that under the Treaty such a Council would have no power whatever to deal with matters in Southern Ireland
while it would have power to deal with matters in Northern Ireland. That is a position which no self-respecting Government, such as that of Northern Ireland, would tolerate for a moment. The Government under this Bill proposes to deal with that question by means of an agreed Clause which says that the Council in Ireland shall not operate for five years. That is a solution of the difficulty which, although it has been agreed to, we think it a very ridiculous way out of the difficulty. Seeing that the late Government admitted that the Council was an anomoly, we claim that this Government should have insisted, if necessary, that the Free State agree to do away with the Council altogether. We are prepared to agree to this solution of the question in the hope that in the five years the Government of Southern Ireland will have come to some arrangement, by which either the Council will be swept away or a more reasonable or logical method of settling this question, will arise. Inasmuch, however, as this agreement has been reached by the three parties concerned, we are prepared to accept the Clause as it stands.
There are two or three other matters which I wish to raise now in order that the Government may be prepared with answers and explanations to-morrow. One of the matters which seriously concern Northern Ireland is the registration of deeds in Dublin. We have in Ireland a system of Deeds Registration, which lawyers admit to be a perfect system. The memorials and the records of that registration are all in Dublin. With the Free State existence we are cut off from any right of access to those records in order to make necessary searches. I want the Government to say how they propose to deal with the matter. It is of vital importance that Ulster should still be able to have access to the records for the purpose of proving titles to property in Northern Ireland. I believe that the Government have obtained an undertaking from, the Free State that they will allow the searches to be continued in future as in the past. I would like a public statement on the subject. The same argument applies to another form of Land Registration that we have in Ireland, the system by which all lands which have been sold by landlords to tenants are registered in a separate register. In
these cases I understand that the actual documents can be transferred from Southern Ireland to Ulster. I want the Government to make a statement as to what they have arranged with the Free State on that subject. With regard to the Appeal Court, I am glad to know that the Government have decided that it is to be done away with, and that in future appeals will come direct from from the Appeal Court in Ulster to the House of Lords in this country. Another important matter on which I should like a statement of the Government's intentions, is with regard to the territorial waters surrounding Ulster. Under the Act of 1920, the areas handed over to the Governments of Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland respectively, were defined as the six Parliamentary counties of Northern Ireland and the twenty-six Parliamentary counties of Southern Ireland. I un lerstund there is considerable doubt in the minds of lawyers and others as to whether these Parliamentary counties carry with them the ordinary territorial waters, extending three miles out from the shore. It has been asserted in some quarters that the Parliamentary counties only extend to low water mark. That has been exercising the minds of a good many people in Ulster, and I shall be glad if the Government in due course will inform the House what is their opinion on the subject and what steps they are taking to make it clear.
With regard to the granting of holdings to ex-service men, I do not propose to go into the question raised by the hon. Member for Neweastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). I can assure him the answers which will be given to-morrow on that point by some of my hon. Friends beside me are perfectly clear. I wish to say at once, however, that we, representatives of Ulster in this House, object to the system which has been adopted by the Government in dealing with this matter. We have had great delays and trouble in several directions, owing to having to wait on action by the Government of Southern Ireland or the Free State, before certain things could be done in Northern Ireland. The policy of the Government should be to separate, as far as possible, into water-tight compartments matters of this kind. The Government proposes to set up a trust to deal
with the sum of £1,500,000 for all Ireland, but that trust can only come into operation as soon as legislation has been passed through both the Northern and Southern Legislatures. We object to that. We want to go ahead with our soldiers' cottages. The Free State may be busy with other matters, and it may be a year or two years before, they find time or think fit to deal with this matter. We hold that involves an injustice; we see no reason why the Government should not arrive, by consent of the parties concerned, at the sums which should in justice go to Northern and Southern Ireland. If the sums were segregated in this way, we could go ahead with our own schemes at once, instead of having to wait for action by the Southern Government. That matter will be gone into more fully during the Committee stage. These are all points of great importance, and it is only right we should enumerate them in open House, so that the Government may be prepared to-morrow, if they are not prepared now, with answers to these various questions.

Mr. HILTON YOUNG: My purpose in rising is the same as that of the hon. and gallant Member for Antrim (Captain Craig), who raised a matter which I believe to be of very substantial importance upon the Bill now under consideration, in the hope that it may attract the attention of the Government before we come to the Committee stage. The matter arises under Clause 6, Sub-section (1, d), which enables His Majesty's Government to make provisions to secure that the management of the National Debt shall not be transacted within the Free State. The point of view which I desire to recommend to the attention of the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill is this. If hereby it is meant that it is the intention to remove wholly the management of all species of the National Debt and registers in connection with the management of the National Debt from Dublin, that is really a policy against which very serious arguments can be advanced. I think the most serious argument to which I should like to draw the most particular attention of the hon. Gentleman is this, that the prospectuses for these various species undertook to those who invested in Southern Ireland in these forms of Debt that the management of the Debt should be conducted through the
Bank of Ireland, with all the conveniences which thereby accrued to the inhabitants of Southern Ireland. It is clear that if the management is wholly removed from Southern Ireland to London, for instance, investors who invested on the strength of those prospectuses may naturally feel that they have a grievance, because the inconveniences of effecting transfers of National Debt at a distance from their residence is very great, involving as it does the cumbrous procedure of powers of attorney and so forth. It may involve as much as seven or eight days' delay. I am not criticising in any way the Chancellor of Northern Ireland in Belfast holding the National Debt in Northern Ireland. That is only a small proportion of the total. The nearest figure I can give is that £111,000,000 of National Debt are held in Ireland, and only some £6,000,000 are held in the North and £105,000,000 in the South.
There is only one other word I should like to say in reinforcement of this point of view, and that is this: I cannot but think it would be well for His Majesty's Government, if they have not done so already, to inquire what view is taken of this by the Provisional Government of Southern Ireland, because it is possible to see that very serious considerations from their point of view may be involved in the removal of the management of the Debt from Dublin. The Income Tax, for instance, and Estate Duties, being deducted at source, are paid in the first place at that place where the Debt is registered and held. If the management were transferred to London, it would mean that in the first place a large portion of the Income Tax would not go, as it otherwise would, directly into the coffers of the Government of Southern Ireland, but it would go directly into the coffers of the Exchequer in England, and though that would only mean entry and counter-entry in the accounts, nevertheless the convenience of getting your money straight into your own purse instead of having it paid across from somebody else's purse is a substantial consideration. One final consideration is that under arrangements which I am sure we all hope to see carried through as speedily as possible, the Government of Southern Ireland may become responsible for a portion of the National Debt. When it does so, it will be natural to imagine that the
management of that part of the National Debt for which it becomes responsible should remain in Ireland. Under these circumstances, it would be not unnatural that any arrangement of this matter should be at any rate postponed until that final settlement, in order that it may then be adjusted with whatever arrangements are finally made. I hope that when we arrive at the Committee stage it will be possible for us to hear that it is not the intention of the Government immediately to withdraw the whole management of such part of the Debt as is held in Southern Ireland from Dublin.

Captain DIXON: I rise to call attention to Sub-section (7) of Clause 3. I hope the Government will see their way to bring in an amendment of this Clause. The Clause deals with the provision of houses and cottages for ex-soldiers. These houses and gardens have been promised years since. The point I wish to bring out is that these houses cannot be built until the Northern Government and the Southern Government agree on a scheme. I put it to the Government that this is absolutely unfair on the ex-soldiers. Why should they wait for their houses while one body of politicians are fighting with another body of politicians? I urge on the Government that instead of one trust there should be two trusts.

Mr. J. JONES: No trust.

Captain DIXON: My hon. Friend is like me. He knows I am trying to get something for Ireland. We both agree on that. We have both tried to get money out of the British Government. We want a trust for Ulster and a trust for the Free State. We do not know, and the Government do not know, whether the Free State are in a position to bring up a scheme at the present moment, and, if they did so, whether they could carry it through. I am not blaming the Free State in any way in regard to this, but we have to face the fact. We in Ulster at the present moment are ready and willing to get on with these houses for ex-soldiers if we can get the money.
There will be no difficulty whatever about dividing the trust. I think I am right in saying—a Paper was issued on the subject to which hon. Members can refer—that Ulster sent 76,000 soldiers to
the War and the rest, of Ireland sent 73,000 soldiers to the War. Therefore, it really amounts to a case of somewhere near fifty-fifty. If the Government would bring in an Amendment to give 50 per cent, of the trust to Ulster and 50 per cent, to the South, we would at once get on with our work and these cottages would certainly be taken in hand within the next month. I hope the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will meet us in this matter.
So far as this Bill is concerned, I take the same attitude as my leader. I could not possibly vote for this Bill. It does not meet the views of either the Ulster-man or the Southerner. It is a Bill which is, at best, a compromise. We hope it will be a good compromise. The Southern Irishmen wished for a united Ireland outside of the United Kingdom; we Ulstermen wished for a United Ireland inside of the United Kingdom. Neither of us got what we wanted The Southern Irishman says—and I daresay he says with some truth—that he agreed to this under duress. I claim that we also agreed to this under duress. We agreed to this as the sole manner in which we could defend our own people and bring peace into that part of the country for which we stand here as the Members of Parliament.
I believe that all sides of this House will give us this credit, when I speak as a member of the Ulster Governmnt. As one who read, with a certain amount of amusement, the remarks of some of my hon. Friends on the other side of the House, who said there was no tranquillity, I say that, after four or five years in Ireland, I wish we could have tranquillity. That is what we on the other side want. Although we are not going to vote for this Bill, I can say that, speaking on behalf of the Northern Government and its Prime Minister, so far as it is in our power, we will do everything to carry out the idea that is behind the compromise, that is, that there will be safety and peace for every class and every section and every religion in the country which we are trying to govern.

Mr. C. ROBERTS: The hon. and gallant Member who spoke last said, with truth, that all Irishmen like getting money out of the Imperial Exchequer. That is a very human and a very natural instinct, of which we have had many illustrations
in the past. I venture to agree with my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) in thinking that the Government of Northern Ireland is being started on rather an extravagant scale. I do not want to say anything which will diminish the status or dignity of that Government, but I should like to know whether the salary of £8,000 for the Governor of Northern Ireland is a matter which is signed, sealed and delivered, or whether it is still open to the consideration of this House. I think it was suggested by interjections that because Northern Ireland was contributing a large sum towards the Imperial expenses, it did not matter very much what we contributed to the Governor's salary. That seems to me a bad argument. I think this Governor is being paid too much. It is certainly much higher than the ordinary scale of a Governor. I do not know with what you ought to compare him. The Governor of Northern Ireland is certainly not more important than the Governor of New South Wales, who gets £5,000, whereas this man gets £8,000, to which we contribute £6,000. You can get a Governor to go to a tropical country like Kenya for £4,000, with, I think, an attendant allowance. It seems to me that the person with whom he should really be compared is the head of a provincial government in Canada or South Africa. They get about £2,500.
11.0 P.M.
You appear to be trying to set up in Northern Ireland a kind of diminished section of the Viceregal Court, and although I agree that out of his £8,000 the Governor has to find his personal staff, whatever that may be, are you going to set him up with a kind of general staff of a Governor-General? The personal staff of other provincial authorities is perhaps a private secretary or possibly an aide-de-camp. I think this is just the sort of extravagance of which the late Government were guilty. The last Parliament was, we all know, perfectly reckless of the way in which the money leaked out at all points. Mr. Gladstone used to say that no Chancellor of the Exchequer was worth his salt that did not look after the cheeseparings and the candle ends. You may-say that this is a candle end, if you like, or a cheeseparing; but it seems to me
that we ought really to make our stand for economy. The Chancellor of the Exchequer ought to realise that whenever anything conies before the House of Commons that primâ facie is redundant that it should be dealt with, and it ought to be challenged at once by the House of Commons. I hope with all my heart that the House of Commons is going to take that stand in all these cases where we can save something.

Lieut-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: I wish to ask that we may have some assurance in the case of the Irish ex-civil servants, who are not included in this Bill, and who have been repeatedly promised by the late Government that their pensions would be secured, and that the British Government would be the ultimate guarantor of these pensions. I ask the Under-Secretary to say that these ex-civil servants will not be in a worse position than they would have been in had the British Government continued to govern Ireland. There is the possibility of a great depreciation of the Irish currency, as there may be a very large circulation of Irish notes, and if these pensions were paid in that currency their incomes would be very greatly depreciated, and these ex-civil servants would be placed in a very anomalous position. There is also another danger from their point of view, and that is that they may be required to live in Ireland to draw their pensions. Many of these men could not possibly live there. They would be murdered if they went there at the present time, and for some years to come. It is most unfair that if they do not go back to Ireland and run the risk of being assassinated that they should lose their pensions. I know one case of a man who has been warned that if he goes back, if he ever dares to put his foot in Ireland, he will be assassinated. These men made a contract with the British Government; but because we have chosen to alter our system of Government there it is most unfair that these men should suffer, for we have a moral responsibility for these one-time servants of the British Crown.
They ask, first, that the payments of the pensions should be guaranteed by the British Government; and, secondly, that they they shall not in any respect be in a less favourable position as regards terms and conditions than those they would have had if the British Govern-
ment had continued. It may be argued that these things are actually laid down in the Irish Free State Constitution Bill, of which we have passed the Second Reading. That is true. But it is a curious thing that in this Bill judges and commissioners are to be on an entirely different basis to the other public servants. These other humble servants of the Crown were included in the promises of the late Government. We have only got a short time to consider this Bill, and really it is absolutely necessary that the Government should give some guarantee that these men will not be placed in a worse position—

Mr. J. JONES: Who are they? Black-and-Tans?

Lieut.-Colonel ARCHER-SHEE: They are ex-civil servants of His Majesty's Government in Ireland—I am not talking about Black-and-Tans—who carried out their duties there as honourably as hon. Members of this House are doing at the present time. The Government of this country has repeatedly pledged itself to see that they do not suffer by the change of Government. Therefore, I say it is up to the present Government, as we are honourably carrying out the Treaty in every other respect, to carry out the promises given by the Government which went out of office the other day. I ask for some assurance that those promises will be carried out and that something will be put into this Bill which will guarantee Irish ex-civil servants their proper pensions.

Mr. MOLES: I associate myself with the speech which has been made by the hon. and gallant Gentleman who has just sat down. I am sure that the hon. Gentleman in charge of this Bill cannot but be aware of the desperate circumstances in which some of thy ex-civil servants are placed. I rise to clear away some misapprehension which appears to exist on the Front Opposition Bench. The hon. Member for Derby (Mr. C. Roberts) thinks that this Government is starting the Government of Northern Ireland on a career of prodigality. If he knew the circumstances, he would see that no charge could be less true. He has asked us to believe that because the Governor of New South Wales is paid a certain sum of money the Governor of Northern Ireland should be
paid a less sum than that which is set down in this Bill. He refrained from calling attention to the case of the Governor of Gibraltar, which is a very much smaller place, and who, for a long period of years while the hon. and gallant Gentleman was a Member of this House, was paid the sum of £8,000 a year, and yet not one word of remonstrance ever came from the hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood). The same hon. and gallant Member also made the accusation that the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland was to be paid entirely out of Imperial funds, but he found himself wrong and he amended his hand. May I give him a little more detail? There is no analogy between the case of Canada or New South Wales because they do not make a shilling of Imperial contribution and they stand on a wholly different plane to Northern Ireland.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The balance of accounts between England and Ireland was made before deciding upon the appointment of this expensive Governor. That balance was apparently fair when it was struck, and if so, now that there is to be a Governor, he should be paid out of Irish and not British funds.

Mr. MOLES: I will reply to what is germane in the interruption of the hon. and gallant Gentleman, and there is very little. We make a contribution, and when Northern Ireland has discharged that, either by the transfer of funds from the Imperial Exchequer or by such taxation as it raises itself directly, when all that has been done there remains a balance of £7,750,000 to be paid into the Imperial Exchequer to be put to your purposes and not to ours. If the hon. Member would only talk to someone who has knowledge of these things that would be better, as it is a wise thing to read a Bill and get to know its provisions before indulging in general criticisms which have no foundation in fact. He told the House that when the residue of the land problem came to be dealt with there would be a tremendous inflation in the price of land. He based that prophecy on something which had occurred in the past. Again he is mistaken. When land purchase comes to be dealt with it will be on the basis of existing Acts. The Courts fixed fair rents and
the purchase price is a given number of years of that fair rent. That is the settled procedure and the principle was worked out in the Wyndham Land Act. There was a very important Report presented to this House in 1918 as part of the proceedings of the Irish Convention. The whole of this problem of Land Purchase was outlined in the scheme. The presumption is that when we come to deal with this problem we shall deal with it on the lines laid down there. The whole of the fears of the hon. Gentleman, therefore, are entirely groundless. I do not propose to travel over the points raised by my two hon. Members, as these will he dealt with more fully in Committee to-morrow. I thought it desirable, however, to clear away two of the grossest misconceptions that have ever been launched in this House.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I want to get some information on two other points.

Mr. MOLES: I am afraid it will take, a long time to clear up what you do not know.

Lieut-Commander KENWORTHY: I understand the hon. Gentleman holds high office in the Northern Parliament and is very much occupied, and I will therefore address my question to the Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies. I want to know, as to the Imperial Contribution, who is to be responsible to the extent of three-fourths of the salary of the Governor-General. Is the Imperial contribution of Northern Ireland—which I understand will be in the region of £8,000,000–pro rata to the population of the six counties? Are the people of these counties paying the same share as the inhabitants of Great Britain?

Mr. MOLES: Exactly the same.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: When the original Bill went through, I joined in supporting the proposal for having no Imperial contribution.

Mr. MOLES: Why do you not stick to it now?

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: The hon. Gentleman should not be too hasty.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for South Belfast (Mr. Moles) was a Member
of the last Parliament, I believe, and he would do well to set an example by not interrupting.

Mr. MOLES: That is quite true, but questions were addressed to me across the Floor of the House.

Mr. SPEAKER: I would appeal to the hon. Gentleman not to be so easily drawn.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I think the Under-Secretary might inform us briefly whether the inhabitants of Northern Ireland are paying their share pro rata for their population, as we are, or whether it has been scaled down, or whether they are being overtaxed, which would be a great injustice. With regard to ex-soldiers' cottages and plots of land, proposals have been made by the Ulster Members that, because there may be some delay in the Free State Government appointing their representative on the Committee to administer this £1,500,000, therefore the Trust, as it is called, should be divided into two, and part of the money handed over to the Northern Government to get on with the work. If that be the case, who is going to administer that? I do not think it is an unfair question to ask what guarantees are we going to have that the first cottages and plots do not go exclusively to supporters of the Orange movement and the Northern Government? There were, as has been mentioned, 73,000 soldiers from Northern Ireland, but they were, not, all Orangemen. A great many of them were Catholics.

Captain DIXON: It is not a Committee to administer the fund. The Trust that is to be set up will only be set up when an agreement is arrived at. It has nothing to do with the administration of the funds, either in Northern or in Southern Ireland. Therefore, the charge is quite untrue that in the case of ex-soldiers any discrimination will be made as to their religion, as the hon. and gallant Member would have found had he looked into the matter. In any case we have complete control of the monies for Northern Ireland.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I am making no charges, but I am trying to make sure that all classes and creeds in Northern Ireland will be fairly treated in this matter, and if half of this £1,500,000 is handed over to the Northern Government and distributed as they like,
I submit that we in this House would be doing less than our duty if we did not insist on strict guarantees that the money was paid out fairly. Hon. Gentlemen must not be, if I may say so, quite so sensitive on this question. If their consciences are clear they will be the first to agree with me.
With regard to the salary of the Governor, this has been, as I think, rightly, assailed, and it is quite out of the question to cite the case of the Governor of Gibraltar. The Governor of Gibraltar is always a distinguished soldier, usually an artillery or engineer officer, who performs the double function of Governor and Commander-in-Chief of the garrison; and to say that, because he has £8,000 a year, therefore the Governor of Northern Ireland should also have £8,000, is beside the point. I think this £8,000 a year is too much, but that is not my principal objection to this new departure of appointing a Governor or Lieutenant-Governor of Northern Ireland. I object to it because it is still further stereotyping partition. You will set up this petty viceregal court, a vested interest will grow up around it, and you will have, I am afraid, a certain amount of flunkeyism and snobbery, social influence, and so on, which will act as a bar to that union in Ireland which must come in the long run. That is why, when the next Resolution is taken, I propose to divide the House against such a proposal, which I consider to be dangerous, useless, and not in the best interests of the people of Northern Ireland.

Colonel NEWMAN: The Under-Secretary of State for the Colonies has dealt with two points of great importance to Southern Ireland, namely, compensation and land purchase, but I cannot help thinking that with regard to compensation he is making a mistake. He gave us to understand that the matter of compensation was being taken up with the Free State, and that it was their intention to proceed at once with the necessary legislation. He must surely mean those cases of compensation which occurred after 11th July. As long ago as last May the Shaw Commission was set up and has been at work intermittently more or less and a solemn agreement was arrived at with the Provisional Government that all cases of damage done by our troops should be
paid for by our Government and damage done by their troops should be paid for by their Government. Surely it cannot be meant to disturb that. He must, I think, mean the great number of cases of compensation for damage which has occurred since 11th July, 1921.
As far as Land Purchase goes, we had a pledge in the 1911 Home Rule Act, and our pledge in the Home Rule Bill of 1920 that in each case the. completion of land purchase shall be proceeded with pari passu with the Bill itself. We have come now to setting up a Free State with the South of Ireland, and yet we have not got land purchase, it has not been even introduced, and it has got to be introduced long after the Free State Government is actually functioning. The Government has rightly taken the advice of the Technical Advisory Committee which they had set up to advise them. The two leading members of the Committee are very well known gentlemen. Sir John Anderson, who I think was permanent Under-Secretary in Ireland, a distinguished civil servant, and Mr. Lionel Curtis, a very well-known author, and a very able man, who has been connected with Irish affairs for some time past. Land purchase is to be completed, but, as I understand, the Government are simply going to guarantee the necessary money, in other words, to lend money to Ireland. There is nothing in the way of a bonus to be given. It is to cost this country nothing. What cost money to the British taxpayer under the Wyndham Act in the past was a bonus to the Irish landlord. That bonus was a free gift. As I understand, there is to be no bonus in the forthcoming Bill to complete land purchase. The Under-Secretary said the Government of the Free State were going to proceed at once with the necessary legislation, which really means that they had to borrow the money. They cannot go on compensating a number of claims if they have not the money. They have been fighting a costly civil war and it is computed by a distinguished member of the Provisional Government that war at present is costing that country something like £1,000,000 a day. It is obvious that they have no money to pay compensation to anyone or to pay for land purchase or anything else, and the first thing they have to do is to borrow from this country, or the joint guarantee, I sup-
pose, of Ireland and this country, £40,000,000 and with that compensation is to be paid. I hope the Under-Secretary for the Colonies will see that a certain amount of this money is earmarked for paying the claims for compensation by Southern Irish Loyalists, and that it is not all eaten up by paying the cost of the present Southern Irish army. With regard to the pre-truce cases, I understand a new arrangement has been come to, and that the British Government are to bear half and the Irish Government half. The previous arrangement was that each side paid for its own damages, but it has been discovered that the damage done by the Irish side was a great deal more than the damage done by the English side. The Irish burned down big houses, and the English side burned down creameries and so on, and the costs against the Irish Government were greater than the costs against the British Government. Now, the British Government are very generously paying half the damage.
The Shaw Commission is now more or less hung up; Lord Shaw has resigned, and the remaining Commissioners, Mr. Dowdall and Mr. Harold Thomas, are carrying on as best they can. Two reports were issued by the Commission, a Minority Report by Lord Shaw and a Majority Report by the other Commissioners. Lord Shaw reported that it was impossible for the Commission to deal with the great number of cases, about 30,000, within a reasonable space of time, and he recommended that the Commission should be closed down and the cases referred back to the Irish County Courts. The other Commissioners, Mr. Dowdall and Mr. Thomas, said they thought they could carry on very nicely if they were allowed. In the result Lord Shaw has resigned, and the other gentlemen are trying to carry on. It is obvious that they cannot deal with 30,000, 20,000 or 10,000 cases at the present rate, and they are going to be assisted by assessors. Are we going to have two assessors going to each of the 26 counties, 52 assessors in all and are they going to sit as a Court in each County? Shall I come before this Court in my County, or will the assessors come down and advise me quietly what I had better take if I want to get my money quickly? The only way to get this thing through would be to appoint a number
of Special Commissioners to go through Ireland, men who are qualified to value the damage done to Loyalists and others by the troops on either side.
This afternoon I asked the Under-Secretary for the Colonies
whether he is aware that the Malicious Injury (Ireland) Act, 1920, has been repealed by the Provisional Government of the Irish Free State; whether such repeal received the Royal Assent; and whether pre-truce awards for compensation can only be brought before the Shaw Commission on the application of either the British or Irish Governments.
He replied:
The reply to the first part of the Question is in the negative, and the Second part does not therefore arise.
I have here columns of Erse—which I cannot read, but translated, is to the following effect:
Decree Number 10, 1922.—A Decree to restrict application of certain powers under the Criminal Injuries (Ireland) Act, 1920.
A list is given of the various things that are repealed, practically the whole Act, and at the end of the Decree says:
This Decree may be cited for all purposes as the Provisional Government Criminal Injuries Decree, 1922.
I do no think the hon. Member can have been well informed when he gave me that answer. I do appeal to the Government to give these Southern Unionists the best compensation they can and as swiftly as they can. If they knew of the cases of real want and misery, of houses burned, stock taken and land seized they would do all in their power to give these men the greatest possible assistance. I have great pleasure in supporting this Bill.

Mr. LYNN: I am afraid that, with reference to the question of soldiers and sailors, some hon. Members think that we want to score a political point. Nothing of the sort. We want to get on with building these houses. In the South of Ireland, as the hon. Member for North Battersea (Mr. Saklatvala) pointed out, they are engaged in burning houses, while we want to build houses, and not to be held up while this burning, shooting and murdering, which we all wish to see brought to an end, continue. We want to build houses for those who served in the War irrespective of whether they are Protestants, Catholics, Orange or Green. Another question which has been raised is land
purchase. The hon. and gallant Member for Newcastle-under-Lyme (Colonel Wedgwood) seems to be under the impression that this is going to throw a heavy burden on the British taxpayer. Land purchase has been one of the greatest social services ever rendered to Ireland or any other country, but it has not cost the British taxpayer a farthing outside the £12,000,000 bonus, and that £12,000,000 was saved in other ways. Therefore the only thing which we in the North of Ireland ask is for the credit of this country to finish the work which has been already started and was very nearly completed. Pledge after pledge has been given in this House that land purchase would be completed, and I do press on my hon. Friend, whom I join in congratulating, that this work should be carried out. There are things apart from party politics. We do not want to hinder the building of a solitary cottage in the south, or to say that the Government are not to give money for settling this question in the south. All we ask is that, with this turmoil and murder going on in the south, we shall not be held up.

Mr. J. JONES: They are going on in the north.

Mr. LYNN: No, they are not. I have been in this House for years, and I am quite accustomed to the rudeness of the hon. Member for Silvertown (Mr. J. Jones). I would urge the House to grant these two requests, which are not unreasonable. I have never found the House unreasonable when a reasonable request was made to it.

Sir GODFREY COLLINS: One or two hon. Members have reminded the House that Northern Ireland is to pay the British Exchequer about £7,750,000 a year. I would add that the Bill also contains the words
or such less sum as the Joint Exchequer Board may determine.
In other words the £7,750,000 is a maximum figure which the Northern Parliament may pay. It may be very considerably less. Without offence, may I say that, after the demands by the Northern Parliament on the British Exchequer during the last year or two, I should be very much astonished if any such sum as £7,750,000 is paid into the British Exchequer. I have risen to ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies to give to the
House the total liability which will fall on the shoulders of the British taxpayer when these two Bills become law.

Mr. J. JONES: Killing Sinn Feiners will cost £2,000,000.

Mr. SPEAKER: The hon. Member for Silvertown had better leave the House, if he is unable to listen to other people.

Mr. J. JONES: I can easily do that.

Sir G. COLLINS: There are one or two main items of liability to which I wish to refer. There are £1,500,000 to provide cottages, and the sum due to pay the pensions of the Royal Irish Constabulary. What is the capitalised figure? It may be £5,000,000. Then there are the claims which are being examined by Lord Shaw's Commission. The late Chief Secretary for Ireland informed the House on 17th May last that the claims against the British Exchequer at that time amounted to £11,000,000. No doubt since that date many further claims have been lodged before the Commission. Can the House be informed of the total sum due on that point? Then there is land purchase. What is the liability on the British Exchequer for that purpose? When the Estimates were discussed in this House earlier in the year, there were certain liabilities which were to be paid in future years, especially the sum of £750,000 to be paid to the Northern Parliament, and, in addition to that, in the present Estimates there is a sum of £2,000,000 to be paid to Crown supporters for personal injuries in the last year or two. Then there is a grant of £1,500,000 to the Northern Parliament as a Grant-in-Aid for certain purposes. I have mentioned a few of the main items of the very heavy expenditure which the British taxpayer must shoulder automatically when these Bills become law. I therefore ask the Under-Secretary for the Colonies whether he can state the total liability, £10,000,000, £20,000,000, or £30,000,000, or whatever the sum may be. Every new Bill brought forward on the subject of Ireland lands the British taxpayer in fresh liability. The introduction of the present Bill foreshadows a liability of £1,500,000 for providing cottages for the Irish people. I do not take exception to that amount, but it is due to the House at a time of grave distress, when unemployment is so great, and taxes are so high,
that the total liability which must automatically fall on the British taxpayer should be stated.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: It is quite impossible to give the assurance for which the hon. Member for Greenock (Sir G. Collins) has asked. I would point out that the only liability in these two Bills consists of three matters, which may be bracketed together, namely, a share in the payment to the new Governor of Northern Ireland; a recoverable amount for the compensation of judges, and the £1,500,000 for the completion of the scheme for land and cottages for ex-service men. The question of compensation and the land question, as expressly stated, were not included in these Bills, and we must, before we give any guarantees, collateral or otherwise, of any payment, await schemes initiated by the Irish Free State. We can give no undertaking and no estimate of any kind of what the liabilities, contingent or otherwise, will be until such schemes have been produced by the Irish Free State. From 6th December these matters will be beyond the control of this House, and it will be up to the responsible Government of Ireland to produce schemes on these two big questions. Until we have seen them we cannot possibly give any estimate or undertaking whatever.
I must clear up one point which seems to have given rise to considerable misunderstanding on both sides of the House, and that is with regard to those cottages for the ex-service men. Under the Irish Land (Provision for Soldiers and Sailors) Act, 1919, the Local Government Board of Ireland was empowered to obtain land to build these cottages. They built and finished 300, and 1,600 are in course of construction. There remain to be provided under the Act somewhere about 3,000. I think the figure is 3,672. The proposal in the Bill is that, as there is no appropriate department in the Irish Free State, and as it is not proposed by the Government to set up two trusts, but only one—and we understood that was agreed to by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland—there should be set up a new body consisting of five members, three appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies, one by the executive of the Irish Free State and one by the Prime Minister of Northern Ireland.

Captain W. BENN: Will they be paid?

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: There is no provision in the Bill for their being paid. If there were, it would have to be definitely stated. One of the members to be appointed by the Secretary of State for the Colonies is to be a representative of the Soldiers' and Sailors' Association. Whether he will require remuneration to be recoverable out of the total amount available for the administration of this trust remains to be considered. At any rate, that is our idea—a neutral body working both in Northern Ireland and in the Free State to complete this scheme. Let me come to the other financial point raised—the salary of the Governor of Northern Ireland. In arriving at the figure, we have to take into account—comparing this officer with other Colonial Governors—that he will have to pay Income Tax and Super-tax at the full rate and he will have to pay all his staff out of his salary. In these circumstances I do not think the figure of £8,000, of which this House is asked to pay £6,000 and Belfast is asked to pay £2,000, is unreasonable. When you have taken into account the deduction which has to be made for Income Tax and Super-tax, which Colonial Governors have not got to meet, it brings the sum below £5,000. It is not excessive, and as to there being any idea of setting up an elaborate court, or anything of that kind, that, I gather, is not the intention. This was asked for by the Northern Government, was pressed for by Ulster, and I think it was a very reasonable figure to have fixed.
The third point in the Bill is the compensation of the judges. Both as regards the Civil Service and the judges under Article 10 of the Treaty, the Irish Free State Government accepts liability for compensation, and will pay the compensation, but as the Irish judges are, and have always been, on the Consolidated Fund of the United Kingdom, it is necessary to put them in this Bill, because we have a technical, in addition to a moral, liability to see that that compensation is paid. We have absolutely no reason to doubt that, both as regards the judges and as regards the Civil Service, the Irish Government will act up to their Treaty obligations. It would be a breach of Article 10 of the Treaty if they failed to do so, and this money voted in this Bill will really in fact be paid by the Irish Free State and not by the taxpayers of Great Britain.
With regard to the territorial waters, I really think, after consulting my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, that there really is nothing substantial in it. If my hon. Friend will look at Subsection (11) of Section 4 of the Act of 1920, he will see the provision as to lighthouses, buoys and so on, which were made reserved subjects, and the point which he put with regard to territorial waters is pretty clearly defined by the inclusion of that provision in the Act. If there is any further point on that which he wishes cleared up, I think the best way would be for him to put a question down co my hon. and learned Friend the Attorney-General, because it is a point of legal interpretation.

Captain CRAIG: Am I to understand that the Law Officers have actually considered this question, and that they have given a decision in favour of the theory that the territorial waters go with the counties that were included in the six counties of Northern Ireland?

Sir D. HOGG: If I may be permitted to answer that, I may say that I have considered the question, and I have given an opinion that that is so.

Mr. ORMSBY-GORE: My right hon. Friend the Member for Norwich (Mr. Hilton Young) raised the extremely important point as to the 105 millions of National Debt registered in the Bank of Ireland. I should like to give him the definite assurance that no action will be taken in this matter without the fullest and most careful further consideration. Every representation that he makes, or that others concerned may make, will be taken into consideration before action is taken, both in Dublin and by the Treasury here.
I turn to the Registry of Deeds and Titles. I have here a statement by Mr. Kennedy, the Law Officer of the Free State, on that point. He says that, as regards the Registry of Deeds, he can now give an assurance on behalf of the Free State Government that
There will be no differentiation between searches asked for by Northern solicitors and by solicitors of the Free State. As regards registry of title, the necessary division of papers will be made, subject to reciprocal undertakings on the part of the Imperial Government and the Free State Government with regard to the return of documents relating to land affected by the
boundary alterations, and subject to such other undertakings with reference to apportionment and scheming of staffs and other matters consequential on division as may properly arise.
I will give the document to my hon. and gallant Friend later, and I think it will prove satisfactory from the point of view he has taken up during this Debate.
I want to make it clear that I only alluded in my opening speech to an Indemnity Bill, compensation, and land purchase because I understood that hon. Members wanted to know why they were not included in this Bill. They cannot be dealt with now, because the initiative must be in Dublin. It must come from the Irish Free State. We have had definite undertakings from the Free State that on these three important points such initiative on their part will be forthcoming. As to what will be done later, the Chancellor of the Exchequer will explain. It is impossible for him to give any figure or definite undertaking until he has seen the scheme put up. It would be improper to promise guarantees or anything of that sort until we have seen the scheme. No guarantee has been asked for, and no guarantee has yet been promised; we must see the scheme put up first.
With regard to the Shaw Commission and the assessors, I shall be glad if the hon. and gallant Member for Finchley (Colonel Newman) will put down a further question as to the assessors for Thursday. I will give him my undertaking, as representing the Colonial Office, to do all I can to expedite the work of the Commission. I think now that I have dealt with all the points I can cover on the Second Reading. If I have not dealt with them sufficiently to-night, they can be raised on another occasion.

Sir W. ALLEN: What has struck me particularly in the speeches of hon. Members opposite during the course of this Debate is their newly-found zeal for financing all this. It looks to me like putting the cart before the horse. We have an old saying in Ireland—I suppose you have it here too—"Who pays the piper calls the tune." In this instance I think it is a case of the Members of this House calling the tune, and we Irish people are going to insist on their paying the piper. A question has been asked as
to what it is all going to cost. If they get off in England with £100,000,000, they should be very satisfied, and I think they thrust it so eagerly on Ireland that they are well entitled to pay the money and, I have no doubt, willing and able. The Under-Secretary has made some excellent and lucid speeches to-night, and I congratulate him heartily on them, but I think he has missed two points, with reference to the question of the building of houses and the Trust for ex-soldiers. He did not answer the question of how the apportionment of this money would be made between the six counties area and the 26 counties area. If it were possible to give an instruction to that effect to the Trust, it would be most satisfactory. Then he did not deal with the particular point made by my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for East Belfast (Captain Dixon), with regard to the delay that was going to take place-almost necessarily so, I believe—in carrying out Sub-section (7) of Clause 3. It will be absolutely necessary, as he pointed out, that there should be action by both the Northern and Southern Parliaments before the Trust can operate. With all the business that the Southern Parliament have before them, has the hon. Gentleman any idea how long it will take them to get an Act like this passed? It might be 12 months, so that I think the appeal made for a division of the Trust is a most reasonable one, so that we in the North can get on with the business, as we are quite willing to do.
12 M.
The other point that I want to deal with is the subject that I raised in a previous Debate, when it was suggested that I should leave it over to this occasion. It has been very well dealt with, but there is a point that I want to impress on the hon. Gentleman in charge of the Bill. There has been a very serious complaint made by the Irish Distress Committee, which was so ably presided over by the present Air Minister (Sir S. Hoare), who has recently resigned from the Committee, and I think, as an Irishman, I must pay my tribute of thanks to that right hon. Gentleman for the zeal he has shown in trying to help these poor distressed people from Ireland, but his Committee make a very serious complaint. It is to the
effect that their duties are very consider ably complicated by the delay in the settlement of claims for damage and malicious injuries. I put a question on that point to-day, to which I have received a long answer, the chief point of which is that originally there were 30,000 cases before the Shaw Commission to deal with. I think I am right in stating that these claims are largely claims that have already been decided by the law courts, and that they are for an immediate distribution of funds, but there are 30,000 claims, of which it is expected that about 20,000 will be found to be within the terms of reference. Of these the Commission has dealt with 1,250 up to the 25th inst., out of 20,000 cases of probably starving, needy people. Everything has been burnt that they possessed in the world, and the Shaw Commission has been sitting for some long time, but only 1,250 cases have been dealt with. The hon. Gentleman has promised to try and speed the thing up. I would, if possible, again impress upon him the necessity of extra speeding up. We know what these cases are over there. We know these people have no money. The Irish Distress Committee have advanced a little money to some of the most needy cases, but this matter is to be dealt with as it ought to be in a generous spirit—and after all it is only giving to the people what belongs to themselves—for these people had nothing to do with committing the malicious injuries, and they have lost everything. I think it is only reasonable to put before the hon. Gentleman these points. I appreciate his intense sympathy with these people. I think he will have the unanimous and cordial approval of the House if he does something to speed up this work to this extent, that within a short period these people will receive some payment for the injuries they have suffered.

Bill accordingly read a Second time.

Bill committed to a Committee of the Whole House for To-morrow (Tuesday).—[Mr. Ormsby-Gore.]

Orders of the Day — IRISH FREE STATE (CONSEQUENTIAL PROVISIONS) [MONEY].

Considered in Committee, under Standing Order 71A.

[Captain FITZROY in the Chair.]

Motion made, and Question proposed:
That it is expedient for the purposes of any Act of the present Session to make such provisions as are consequential on, or incidental to, the establishment of the Irish Free State:—

(1) to authorise the payment out of the Consolidated Fund of any pensions and allowances payable under the said Act to existing Irish judges, the Lord Chancellor of Ireland, and the Irish Land Commissioners;
(2) to authorise payment out of the Consolidated Fund to the Governor of Northern Ireland of a salary of eight thousand pounds;
(3) to authorise payment out of moneys provided by Parliament to any trust which may be constituted under the said Act for the purpose of providing in Ireland cottages, with or without plots or gardens, for the accommodation of men who served in any of His Majesty's naval, military or air forces in the late War, and for other purposes incidental thereto, of a sum not exceeding one million five hundred thousand pounds."—(King's Recommendation signified.)

The CHANCELLOR of the EXCHEQUER (Mr. Baldwin): In moving the Resolution standing in my name, may I say that in the discussion on the Bill which (has just passed its Second Reading the points of the matter have been dealt with at some length. But most hon. Members are aware that this Resolution is necessary. I trust the Committee will allow the Resolution to be passed so that we may then deal with the matter on its merits and in detail on the morrow.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: On a point of Order. I wish to move an Amendment to leave out paragraph (2) of the Resolution. Will you put each portion of the Resolution separately, or the whole together? Will you kindly inform me at which point I shall be in order in moving to leave out paragraph (2)?

The DEPUTY-CHAIRMAN: I shall put the whole Resolution as one Question, and if the hon. and gallant Member wishes to move to leave out the paragraph, he can do so now.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: I beg to move to leave out paragraph (2).
I do not wish to repeat the speech which I made on the Second Reading, but I would remind hon. Members opposite that, from what I saw at the General Election, they did commit themselves to economy and the saving of money. Here is a practical example where money can be saved without any loss of efficiency. This £8,000 for a Governor of Northern Ireland is a luxury which is absolutely unnecessary and should not be imposed upon the British taxpayer. When the previous Measure was under discussion I asked the representative of the Colonial Office if he could say how the £7,750,000 paid by Northern Ireland compared with the payments made by this country, and he could not then supply that information. Therefore I am rather hampered in pressing this argument, but it has been admitted by the Chancellor of the Exchequer that the appointment of this Governor is pressed for by the people of Northern Ireland. If that be so, our argument is that Northern Ireland should pay for it. The hon. Member for Armagh (Sir W. Allen) said that those who paid the piper had a right to call the tune. Therefore Northern Ireland should pay for this Governor because they are calling the tune. The Crown is going to be represented by a Governor-General for the whole of Ireland, and I do not see why that official should not spend, say, three months of the year in Belfast, or he might appoint a Commission to represent him. If it is necessary for the social life of Belfast that there should be a Viceregal Court at which the beautiful young damsels may make their début in society, I would not deprive them of that privilege, but I think that they might pay this salary. We cannot afford to spend money on this sort of business, because we are already overtaxed. I hope a large number of Anti-waste Members will support this Amendment, and I also trust that hon. Members who are supporting the Government will remember the pledges they gave to their harassed constituents at the General Election and vote for economy all the time. I am now going to give them their first opportunity of doing that. I give hon. Members this opportunity of
recording a vote for saving money, and I therefore move to leave out paragraph (2).

Mr. J. JONES: I am one of those who believe in the unity of Ireland—not in disunity. Why should we have two officials as a result of this legislation? It is not merely a question of economy; it is also a question of eventual national efficiency. Why should we have two representatives of the King in Ireland? That is the proposal really contained in this Resolution. We are to have a Governor-General in the South of Ireland and another official to represent His Majesty in the North of Ireland. As an Irishman, I would like to see one representative only of Great Britain in Ireland, and he should use his influence with the object of bringing unity to the people of Ireland. Salary does not matter a great deal, if we can only achieve unity. Even if it cost more than the amount represented in the Resolution, we should in other directions effect a much greater saving. Are we going to have two officials, one using his influence in one direction to keep alive old enmities, and the other in another direction also operating to keep alive other antagonisms? Why should we not have a Governor-General for the whole of Ireland to act as the plenipotentiary of the Orangemen on one side and of the Sinn Feiners on the other? Why not have one representative for the whole country, saving both the expenditure of money and of blood? I do not care if it costs a million a year; it would be well worth the money, for we are spending more money now in pursuit of a policy which results in the shedding of blood by the different parties in Ireland. They can have their different Parliaments if they like; they can have one in every street if they choose. Let them keep on talking, but let us encourage them to go in for the unity of Empire. As believers in a real constitutional system of government, let us agree to have one Governor-General nominated by the Government of Great Britain to represent the King. I do not care whether it costs £8,000 or £800,000; if we can only get a permanent agreement, it will be well worth the sacrifice.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: As the issue has been raised, I hope we shall get a reply from the Government. I do not agree with the financial arguments of the
last speaker, but I do want to be to be informed why so large a salary is proposed to be paid out of the British Treasury for an official of whose functions we unhappily perhaps know too little.

Captain ELLIOT: It would be a pity if the defence of this was left entirely to the Members for Ulster, a most ungracious thing on the part of the other Members of this House. At a time when it seemed that taxation would be very much less than it would be in the North, Ulster came forward and offered to go hand-in-hand with us and share the expense, and she put forward a claim to be allowed to take her part in the United Kingdom, and when, as in this case, out of the Imperial contribution which she is paying, she is left to shoulder a burden of this extra official—

Lieut.-Commander KENW0RTHY: We are paying for it.

Captain ELLIOT: It is all very well to say a certain proportion of this is being paid by the people of Ireland and the rest of it is being paid by the British taxpayer. The British taxpayer, let us never forget, means the Ulster taxpayer, too. That £2,000 they are paying directly, and their proportion of the rest, and it would be a most ungracious act for this House to niggle at this proposal that the Ulster people should be entitled to have back some of this contribution which they are offering as a gift to upkeep of the Empire, the only Dominion which is paying directly a sum to the Imperial Exchequer for the upkeep of the Imperial expenses of Great Britain. An attack is made by the free Liberals on the so-called ground of economy, which is an argument that comes badly from people who desire to drive Ulster out from the United Kingdom—[HON. MEMBERS: "No!"]—and it is sought to throw away the contribution of £7,750,000 which Ulster is willing and ready to pay, and has paid, against their previous desire and their votes on every single occasion. Ulster has thrown £8,000,000 into the pockets of the taxpayers of the United Kingdom against the express desire and hope of the so-called economist free Liberal party, and they might well sit silent when, as now, it is a question of a paltry sum being
returned to the people who are giving this magnificent contribution. As for the contributions we have had from the Labour Benches, it is what one might expect. From the democratic party comes, as always comes from that so-called democratic party, a demand for autocracy, the demand that we in Britain should force some form of government on the people of Ireland against their will. Those who clamour at every street corner for self-determination and more and more and yet more self-determination are the same men who, when it is called by the other name of partition, are the first to cry out against it. The barrenness of their thought has been clearly demonstrated. However, it does not matter.

Mr. J. JONES: All you have said does not matter.

Captain ELLIOT: It may be the proposal of the Irishman with a Welshman sitting for an English constituency. It is interesting to note that on this occasion we have again so clearly demonstrated what we had before, that the so-called Labour party will not think things out to their logical conclusion. Their desire is that a solution should be found from above and imposed on the people. Their contribution to this Debate has been the claim that the British Parliament should force on the two Irish Parliaments a solution which neither of them is willing to agree to. I am content to leave it at that. But that argument does not matter. The economic argument is brought forward now on the chance of snatching a few votes at the next by-election. It is well that we should state publicly that this proposal is brought forward by a party that did its best to withhold the contribution of £8,000,000 to the British taxpayer. These are men in whose hands the cry of relief to the taxpayer now sounds very badly indeed.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: The hon. and gallant Gentleman is, I believe, one of the solitary survivors of the county of Lanark.

Captain ELLIOT: The only one.

Colonel WEDGWOOD: He has endeavoured to work off one of his election speeches about the Labour party which
had no connection whatever with any argument used by the Labour party. The speech of the hon. Member for West Ham was to the effect that it was desirable to have one superman, one figure head, in Ireland instead of two, not one Government in Ireland instead of two. It is perfectly possible for the Governor or the Viceroy in Dublin to spend part of his time in Belfast and to sign the documents and act as Viceroy in Belfast as well as in Dublin, and to say a suggestion of that sort is to impose autocracy upon Ireland or to impose a sort of Government they do not want is simply playing with the facts. We know perfectly well that if you have more of these Governors it merely means more centres of flunkeydom, more expense, more interference between the representatives of the people and the people themselves, and is in any case thoroughly reactionary. From every point of view, both from the point of view of economy and good government and common sense, it would be well to neglect the views of the hon. and gallant Gentleman and to adopt the views of the Labour party.

Mr. PRINGLE: The hon. and gallant Member for Lanark (Captain Elliot) has opened up a very wide field of discussion, and I think it is well to improve the shining hour. As the hon. and gallant Gentleman seems to be under some delusion it is important that the Committee should have these delusions dispelled. He believes, for example, that Northern Ireland is going to contribute £8,000,000 to the Imperial Exchequer. There is no provision of that kind at all. There is a certain maximum figure mentioned in the Act, I think something like £7,750,000, but when all the payments which are to be made to Northern Ireland are taken into account it is going to be a very much lesser sum, and in any future argument that the hon. and gallant Gentleman contributes it is well that he should bear this in mind, and that while the figure of £8,000,000 may be very useful for an election platform in Lanarkshire it is not altogether appropriate to Committee of this House. A certain amount of accuracy is even necessary on the part of a politician who in his time has bowed the knee to the Socialist idol. My first recollection of the hon. Member was as a holder of the theories which prevail on the Labour Benches.
The real question before the Committee on this Financial Resolution, and the Resolution moved by the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) is whether the first Financial Act of this new Parliament is to create a totally unnecessary office and to change the taxpayers of this country with the salary of that office. It is a perfectly plain issue. There has been no argument put forward to prove the necessity for the creation of this office. It was never contemplated when the Government of Ireland Act was passing through this House. No suggestion was made that the position of Ireland was going to mean the creation of two representatives of the Crown. Why should not a single representative of His Majesty be adequate for the whole of Ireland? He is not to be a partisan. The representative of the Crown in Dublin will not be a partisan in the Free State. He therefore can be equally impartial in dealing with Northern Ireland. There is no necessity for this appointment unless it be that Belfast desires to be favoured with the trappings of a Vice-regal Court. In these days we have not the money for these things. It is much more important that something should be done for the. unemployed of Belfast than that £8,000 a year should be spent on a totally unnecessary official. In these circumstances we are going to divide the Committee on the question of economy. We have a definite case here of the creation of a new office. Nearly every Unionist candidate whose speeches I read during the General Election posed as an advocate of economy. He informed his constituents that on every occasion he was going to press and vote for economy. We have now an opportunity of putting this to the test. The Government has not provided an argument, and the hon. Member for Lanark has not provided an argument. We have had a speech on the Second Reading, we have had the Motion proposed by the Chancellor of the Exchequer, and finally we have had a speech from the hon. Member for Lanark. None of these speeches have justified the creation of this office. I make this appeal to the hon. Gentleman, let them put their election pledges into practice. Let us have deeds, not words, and follow- my hon. and gallant Friend into the Division Lobby in favour of this Amendment.

Mr. BALDWIN: I think, perhaps, at this stage I might remind the Committee that, after all, this Clause in the Bill, as many other Clauses are, is really the fulfilment of a pledge. On 6th March this year a Debate took place on the Irish Free State (Agreement) Bill, and we were dealing with the question of representatives of Northern Ireland. Mr. Churchill used these words:
I wish to make it quite clear that, if Ulster contracts out of the area of the Free State, as she will have a statutory right to do, and unless there is an agreement, we should regard the wishes of Ulster in this respect as decisive. I make that statement definitely. If she does not wish the Viceroy or Governor-General selected for the Free State to discharge these functions over Northern Ireland, some other arrangement will be made. I wish to make that quite clear."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 6th March, 1922; col. 907, Vol. 151.]
We intend to fulfil the pledges made both to the North and to the South, and if this be the fulfilment of this pledge, as we certainly understand it to be, I do not think that the figure mentioned for salary is an excessive one. It is two-fifths of the existing salary that is paid to the Lord Lieutenant of Ireland.

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: May I point out that it is £3,000 more than we pay to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of England. It seems to me a very large salary. I quite agree that the pledge given ought to be honoured, but I think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain to the House that the functions of the office are of such sufficient importance to Northern Ireland herself as to justify so large a salary as £8,000. It is all right to say that it is only two-fifths of the salary of the Lord Lieutenant, but the fact is that this gentleman, whoever he is, will discharge totally different functions, infinitely less, important, and it is an office of sufficient glitter to attract certain people. I do think the Chancellor of the Exchequer should explain to the House more of the importance of the position and the purpose of this high officer who is to receive so large a salary as £8,000 which is more by £3,000 than we pay to the Chancellor of the Exchequer of England.

Lieut.-Commander KENWORTHY: If that pledge was given by Mr. Churchill about the Governor in the case of Ulster contracting out, was any pledge given about our paying him? Did we undertake to pay his salary?

Question put, "That the words proposed to be left out stand part of the Question."

The Committee divided: Ayes, 225; Noes, 100.

Division No. 6.]
AYES.
[12.35 a.m.


Agg-Gardner, Sir James Tynte
Ganzoni, Sir John
Murchison, C. K.


Ainsworth, Captain Charles
Garland, C. S.
Nail, Major Joseph


Alexander, E. E. (Leyton, East)
Gates, Percy
Nesbitt, J. C.


Alexander, Col. M. (Southwark)
Gaunt, Rear-Admiral Sir Guy R.
Newman, Colonel J. R. P. (Finchley)


Allen, Lieut.-Col. Sir William James
George, Major G. L. (Pembroke)
Newman, Sir R. H. S. D. L. (Exeter)


Amery, Bt. Hon. Leopold C. M.S.
Gilmour, Lt.-Col. Rt. Hon. Sir John
Newton, Sir D. G. C. (Cambridge)


Apsley, Lord
Gray, Harold (Cambridge)
Nicholson, Brig.-Gen. J. (Westminster)


Archer-Shee, Lieut.-Colonel Martin
Greenwood, William (Stockport)
O'Neill, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Ashley, Lt.-Col. Wilfrid W.
Grenfell, Edward C. (City of London)
Ormsby-Gore, Hon. William


Astor, J. J. {Kent, Dover)
Guest, Hon. C. H. (Bristol, N.)
Paget, T. G.


Baird, Rt. Hon. Sir John Lawrence
Hacking, Captain Douglas H.
Parker, Owen (Kettering)


Baldwin, Rt. Hon. Stanley
Hall, Lieut.-Col. Sir F. (Dulwich)
Penny, Frederick George


Balfour, George (Hampstead)
Hall, Rr-Adml Sir W. (Liv'p'l, W. D'by)
Percy, Lord Eustace (Hastings)


Barlow, Rt. Hon. Sir Montague
Halstead, Major D.
Perkins, Colonel E. K.


Barnett, Major Richard W.
Hamilton, Sir George C. (Altrincham)
Pielou, D, p.


Becker, Harry
Hannon, Patrick Joseph Henry
Price, E. G.


Bell, Lieut.-Col. w. c. H. (Devizes)
Harrison, 'F. C.
Raine, W.


Berry, Sir George
Harvey, Major S. E.
Rankin, Captain James Stuart


Betterton, Henry B.
Hawke, John Anthony
Rawson, Lieut.-Com. A. C.


Birchall, J. Dearman
Hay, Major T. W, (Norfolk, South)
Rentoul, G. S.


Bird, Sir R. B. (Wolverhampton, W.)
Henderson, Sir T. (Roxburgh)
Reynolds, W. G. W.


Blundell, F. N.
Henn, sir Sydney H.
Rhodes, Lieut-Col. J. P.


Bowyer, Capt. G. E. W.
Hennessy, Major J. R. G.
Richardson, Lt.-Col. Sir P. (Chrtsy)


Boyd-Carpenter, Major A.
Herbert, Dennis (Hertford, Watford)
Robertson, J. D. (Islington, W.)


Brass, Captain W.
Herbert, S. (Scarborough)
Rogerson, Capt. J. E.


Bridgeman, Rt. Hon. William Clive
Hewett, Sir J. P.
Rothschild, Lionel de


Brown, Brig.-Gen. Clifton (Newbury)
Hilder, Lieut.-Colonel Frank
Ruggles-Brise, Major E.


Brown, J. W. (Middlesbrough, E.)
Hiley, Sir Ernest
Russell, Alexander West (Tynemouth)


Bruford, R.
Hogg, Rt. Hon. Sir D. (St. Marylebone)
Russell, William (Bolton)


Bruton, Sir James
Holbrook, Sir Arthur Richard
Russell-Wells, Sir Sidney


Buckley, Lieut.-Colonel A.
Hood, Sir Joseph
Rutherford, Sir W. W. (Edge Hill)


Burney, Com. (Middx., Uxbridge)
Hopkins, John W. W.
Samuel, A. M. (Surrey, Farnham)


Butler, J. R. M. (Cambridge Univ.)
Howard, Capt. D. (Cumberland, N.)
Samuel, Samuel (W'dsworth, Putney)


Butt, Sir Alfred
Howard-Bury, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Sanders, Rt. Hon, Sir Robert A.


Button, H. S.
Hudson, Capt. A.
Sanderson, Sir Frank B.


Cadogan, Major Edward
Hughes, H. Collingwood
Sandon, Lord


Campion, Lieut.-Colonel W. R.
Hume, G. H.
Shepperson, E. W.


Cassels, J. D.
Hunter-Weston, Lt.-Gen. Sir Aylmer
Singleton, J. E.


Cayzer, Sir C. (Chester, City)
Hurd, Percy A.
Skelton, A. N.


Chadwick, Sir Robert Burton
Hutchison, G. A. C. (Peebles, N.)
Smith, Sir Allan M. (Croydon, South)


Chamberlain, Rt. Hon. N. (Ladywood)
Hutchison, W. (Kelvingrove)
Smith, Sir Harold (Wavertree)


Churchman, Sir Arthur
Inskip, Sir Thomas Walker H.
Somerville, A. A. (Windsor)


Clarry, Reginald George
James, Lieut.-Colonel Hon. Cuthbert
Somerville, Daniel (Barrow-in-Furn'ss)


Clay, Lieut-Colonel H. H. Spender
Jarrett, G. W. S.
Sparkes, H. W.


Clayton, G. C.
Jephcott, A. R.
Stanley, Lord


Cobb, Sir Cyril
Jodrell, Sir Neville Paul
Steel, Major S. Strang


Cockerill, Brigadier-General G. K.
Johnson, Sir L. (Walthamstow, E.)
Stott, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Colfax, Major Wm. Phillips
Jones, G. W. H. (Stoke Newington)
Sueter, Rear-Admiral Murray Fraser


Colvin, Brig.-General Richard Beale
Kennedy, Captain M. S. Nigel
Sugden, Sir Wilfrid H.


Craig, Captain C. C. (Antrim, South)
King, Capt. Henry Douglas
Sutcliffe, T.


Croft, Lieut.-Colonel Henry Page
Lamb, J. Q.
Sykes, Major-Gen. Sir Frederick H.


Crooke, J. S. (Derltend)
Lane-Fox, Lieut.-Colonel G. R.
Terrell, Captain R. (Oxford, Henley)


Curzon, Captain Viscount
Law, Rt. Hon. A. B. (Glasgow, C.)
Thomson, Luke (Sunderland)


Dalziel, Sir D (Lambeth, Brixton)
Leigh, Sir John (Clapham)
Thomson, F. C. (Aberdeen, South)


Davidson, J. C. C. (Hemel Hempstead)
Lioyd, Cyril E. (Dudley)
Titchfield, Marquess of


Davidson, Major-General Sir J. H.
Lioyd-Greame, Rt. Hon. Sir P.
Tryon, Rt. Hon. George Clement


Davies, Thomas (Cirencester)
Lorden, John William
Tubbs, S. W.


Dawson, Sir Philip
Lorimer, H. D.
Wallace, Captain E.


Dixon, Capt. H. (Belfast, E.)
Loyd, Arthur T. (Abingdon)
Ward, Col. L. (Kingston-upon-Hull)


Doyle, N. Grattan
Lumley, L. R.
Watts, Dr. T. (Man., Withington)


Du Pre, Colonel William Baring
Lynn, R. J.
Wells, S. R.


Edmondson, Major A. J.
M'Connell, Thomas E.
Weston, Colonel John Wakefield


Ednam, Viscount
Macnaghten, Hon. Sir Malcolm
Wheler, Col. Granville C. H.


Elliot, Capt. Waiter E. (Lanark)
McNeill, Ronald (Kent, Canterbury)
White, Lt.-Col. G. D. (Southport)


England, Lieut.-Colonel A
Macpherson, Rt. Hon. James I.
Whitla, Sir William


Erskine, Lord (Weston-super-Mare)
Makins, Brigadier-General E.
Windsor, viscount


Erskine-Bolst, Captain C.
Margesson, H. D. R.
Winterton, Earl


Evans, Capt. H. Arthur (Leicester, E.)
Mason, Lieut.-Col. C. K.
Wise, Frederick


Eyres-Monsell, Com. Bolton M.
Milne, J. S. Wardlaw
Wolmer, Viscount


Fawkes, Major F. H.
Mitchell, W. F. (Saffron Walden)
Wood, Rt. Hn. Edward F. L. (Ripon)


Fermor-Hesketh, Major T.
Moles, Thomas
Woodcock, Colonel H. C.


Flanagan, W. H.
Molloy, Major L. G. S.
Yerburgh, R. D. T.


Forestier-Walker, L.
Moore, Major-General Sir Newton J.



Foxcroft, Captain Charles Talbot
Moore-Brabazon, Lieut.-Col. J. T. C.
TELLERS FOR THE AYES.—


Fraser, Major Sir Keith
Moreing, Captain Algernon H.
Lieut.-Colonel Gibbs and Major


Furness, G. J.
Morrison-Bell, Major A. C. (Honiton)
Barnston.


Galbraith, J. F. W.




NOES.


Adamson, W. M. (Staff., Cannock)
Hinds, John
Ritson, J.


Adamson, Rt. Hon. William
Hirst, G. H.
Roberts, C. H. (Derby)


Alexander, A. V. (Sheffield, Hillsbro')
Hodge, Lieut-Col. J. P. (Preston)
Roberts, F. O. (W. Bromwich)


Amman, Charles George
Hogge, James Myles
Robertson, J. (Lanark, Bothwell)


Attlee, C. R.
Jenkins, W. (Glamorgan, Neath)
Robinson, W. C. (York, Elland)


Barker, G. (Monmouth, Abertillery)
Johnston, Thomas (Stirling)
Saklatvala, S.


Bellairs, Commander Carlyom W.
Jones, J. J. (West Ham, Silvertown)
Salter, Dr. A.


Bonn, Captain Wedgwood (Leith)
Jones, Morgan (Caerphilly)
Sexton, James


Bonwick, A.
Jones, R. T. (Carnarvon)
Shaw, Hon. Alex. (Kilmarnock)


Brown, James (Ayr and Bute)
Jowett, F. W. (Bradford, East)
Shinwell, Emanuel


Buchanan, G.
Lansbury, George
Short, Alfred (Wednesbury)


Buckle, J.
Lawson, John James
Simon, Rt. Hon. Sir John


Buxton, Charles (Accrington)
Leach, W.
Smith, T. (Pontefract)


Chapple, W. A.
Lunn, William
Stephen, Campbell


Charleton, H. C.
Lyle-Samuel, Alexander
Stewart, J. (St. Rollox)


Collins, Sir Godfrey (Greenock)
McEntee, V. L.
Thomas, Brig.-Gen. Sir O. (Anglesey)


Collison, Levi
McLaren, Andrew
Thomson, T. (Middlesbrough, West)


Davies, Rhys John (Westhoughton)
Maclean, Nell (Glasgow, Govan)
Tillett, Benjamin


Dudgeon, Major C. R.
Marshall, Sir Arthur H.
Trevelyan, C. P.


Dunnico, H.
Mathew, C. J.
Turner, Ben


Edwards, C. (Monmouth, Bedwellty)
Maxton, James
Wallhead, Richard C.


Falconer, J.
Morel, E. D.
Warne, G. H.


Graham, D, M. (Hamilton)
Morrison, R. C. (Tottenham, N.)
Wedgwood, Colonel Josiah C.


Gray, Frank (Oxford)
Muir, John W.
Welsh, J. C.


Greenwood, A. (Nelson and Colne)
Murray, R. (Renfrew, Western)
Westwood, J.


Grenfell, D. R. (Glamorgan)
Nicol, Robert
Whiteley, W.


Griffiths, T. (Monmouth, Pontypool)
O'Grady, Captain James
Williams, T. (York, Don Valley)


Grundy, T. W.
Paling, W.
Wilson, C. H. (Sheffield, Attercliffe)


Hall, F. (York, W. R., Normanton)
Pattinson, R. (Grantham)
Wilson, R. J. (Jarrow)


Harbord, Arthur
Phillipps, Vivian
Wright, W.


Hardle, George D.
Ponsonby, Arthur



Hastings, Patrick
Potts, John s.
TELLERS FOR THE NOES.—


Hayday, Arthur
Pringle, W. M. R.
Lieut-Commander Kenworthy and


Henderson, T. (Glasgow)
Richardson, R. (Houghton-le-Spring)
Major Entwistle.


Herriotts, J.
Riley, Ben



Main Question put, and agreed to.

Original Question again proposed.

Mr. HAYDAY: I wish to raise a question in relation to the moneys to provide cottages for men who served in any of His Majesty's naval, military, or air forces. It appears to me that provision should also be made for the men of the mercantile marine. I am very earnest on this point. During the War no arm of the Civil Service ran such great risks as did those gallant men, whose praises have been sung in this House time and oft; but in all provisions of this kind they are left out. If it is possible for me to raise this question on the Committee stage tomorrow, I would defer any further remarks till then; but, if not, I feel compelled to move now that provision should be made for the men of the mercantile marine in addition to the three services mentioned in the Resolution, If the Chancellor of the Exchequer or you, Captain Fitzroy, tell me that if this Money Resolution passes it will still be possible for me to move an Amendment to class these men with those mentioned in the Resolution, I shall be quite content.

Major ENTWISTLE: May I appeal to the hon. Member, when he makes his
Motion, to add the word "fishermen" to the "men of the mercantile marine"? I make this appeal with a recollection of cases in Select Committees where it was held that the phrase "mercantile marine" did not include fishermen, though I think the claims of fishermen are every bit as good and as strong as those of the men of the mercantile marine. The work undertaken by the fishermen during the War was quite as dangerous to themselves and quite as advantageous to the country as that of the men of the mercantile marine.

Mr. BALDWIN: I have been looking up the point raised by the hon. Member, but unfortunately I am not a lawyer. I see that the money that is provided for in this Resolution is merely the balance of moneys sanctioned under an Act of Parliament passed in 1919. My impression as a layman is that it is impossible at this stage to alter the destination of grants which are controlled by Act of Parliament, but I will make inquiries on the point and, if it is possible for my hon. Friend to raise that point to-morrow, I should be willing to let him know.

Mr. HAYDAY: If this be a balance, surely that leaves the matter open for discussion. I will be quite content if the Chancellor of the Exchequer will look into the matter. I want to raise the point very definitely, however, for I feel this arm or service has been overlooked. In reply to my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for South-West Hull (Major Entwistle), I thought mercantile marine included fishermen. As an old mercantile mariner, I never saw any distinction made between the men in the ordinary cargo carrying boats and those who went down to the sea in fishing boats.

Mr. PRINGLE: It is very important that the Chancellor of the Exchequer should bear in mind the change of circumstances since the original Act was passed. When it was passed, it is perfectly true, only soldiers and sailors were within the purview of that Act. At that time, however, it was believed that compensation was going to be found for the mercantile marine from Germany. The late House firmly believed in that idea. I used to come into Debates, and whenever mention was made of Germany paying there were loud cheers indicating the fervent belief in that idea. Not only so. Only a few months ago the announcement was made by a Member of this House that money had been allocated for meeting the needs of the mercantile marine, but immediately afterwards it was announced that his statement was unofficial. In these circumstances it is now clear that the mercantile marine must abandon all hope of receiving anything from Germany.

Lieut.-Colonel HILDER: What has Germany to do with it?

Mr. PRINGLE: I thought I had explained that, but as the hon. and gallant Gentleman does not understand I will do so again. I was calling the Government's attention to the change of circumstances which had taken place since 1919. This change is, I think, sufficient to justify the Government in departing from the original intention of the Act, and in view of the argument I have just put forward I hope the Government will consider the matter before to-morrow, and not only the suggestions made by the hon. and gallant
Members for Central Hull (Lieut.-Commander Kenworthy) and South-west Hull (Major Entwistle). I have no doubt the hon. and gallant Member for Central Hull is equally anxious to enforce the point which has been made—for obvious reasons. Therefore, I give notice that, if the Government do not see their way to meet this point to-morrow, we shall raise the matter again and press it to a Division.

Mr. N. MACLEAN: In the explanation made to the hon. Member for West Nottingham (Mr. Hayday) the Chancellor of the Exchequer said that the destination of this money cannot be altered, as it was according to the Act passed by the late Parliament. We are asked in this House to authorise the payment of a certain sum. I should like to ask the Chancellor of the Exchequer or the Prime Minister why we are asked to authorise a sum of money already authorised. Evidently it was authorised in the Act passed by the late Parliament, and therefore there is no need to ask for it in this Parliament. If, however, this House is being asked to grant this money it has the right to say what its destination should be and how it should be allocated. That should be taken into account when the right hon. Gentleman considers any Amendment put forward by any of the Members mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Penistone (Mr. Pringle).

Mr. LYLE-SAMUEL: We are being asked to vote a very large sum of £1,500,000, and I am entitled to ask the Attorney-General, who is here now, what alteration there is in view of the changed circumstances wt this moment compared with the promise made earlier. Here is to be £1,500,000 for the benefit of ex-service men who served in His Majesty's Navy, Army and Air Force in Northern Ireland and Southern Ireland, but where is there to be something of this kind for members of His Majesty's Navy, Army and Air Forces at home in England? [HON. MEMBERS: "Scotland."] I do not mind dragging in Wales even. The circumstances in which this money was to be allocated are utterly changed. The Chancellor of the Exchequer says it is not quite clear, but he wants the Vote
now. What is the change in the legal position? We ought not to vote £1,500,000 for ex-service men in one part of His Majesty's Dominions and care not for the others, when we have so many in miserable circumstances at home.

Resolution to be reported To-morrow (Tuesday).

By virtue of an Act passed in the twenty-fourth year of the reign of His late Majesty King George the Third, intituled, "An Act to repeal so much of two Acts made in the tenth and fifteenth years of the reign of His present Majesty as authorises the Speaker of the House of Commons to issue His Warrant to the Clerk of the Crown for making out Writs for the Election of Members to serve in Parliament, in the manner therein provided, and for substituting other provisions for the like purposes,"

Mr. SPEAKER has nominated

The Eight Hon. Sir Frederick George Banbury, Baronet,

The remaining Orders were read, and postponed.

It being after half-past Eleven of the clock upon Monday evening, Mr. SPEAKER adjourned the House, without Question put, pursuant to the Standing Order.

Adjourned at One Minute before One o'Clock.

The Right Hon. Sir Evelyn Cecil, G.B.E.,
Captain William Wedgwood Benn, D.S.O., D.F.C.,
Thomas Power O'Connor, Esquire,
William James Thorne, Esquire,

being Members of the House of Commons, or any one or more of them, to execute all and singular the powers given to the Speaker of the House of Commons for the time being, for issuing Warrants to the Clerk of the Crown, in the cases as in the Act specified.